ROBERT LEE WILLIAMS, JR., Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRMED as MODIFIED; Opinion Filed December 22, 2008.
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-07-00807-CR
............................
ROBERT LEE WILLIAMS, JR., Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F06-00005-WH
.............................................................
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Moseley, FitzGerald, and Lang-Miers
Opinion By Justice Moseley
        A jury convicted Robert Lee Williams, Jr., of aggravated sexual assault and assessed punishment at life imprisonment. On appeal, appellant's attorney filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response.
        We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
        We note that appellant is subject to the sex offender registration requirements of Chapter 62 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 62.001(5)(A) (Vernon Supp. 2008). However, the trial court's judgment states the sex offender registration requirements do not apply to appellant. Thus, the trial court's judgment is incorrect. We modify the trial court's judgment to show the sex offender registration requirements apply to appellant. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529-30 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd).
        As modified, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
 
 
 
                                                          
                                                          JIM MOSELEY
                                                          JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
070807F.U05