Dedrek Shaniel Robinson v. The State of Texas Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 3 of Dallas County (memorandum opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

MODIFY and AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed September 28, 2017. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-16-01320-CR DEDREK SHANIEL ROBINSON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F14-14233-J MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Fillmore, and Stoddart Opinion by Justice Fillmore Dedrek Shaniel Robinson waived a jury and pleaded not guilty before the trial court to the charged offense of sexual assault of a child. The trial court found appellant guilty of the lesser-included offense of indecency with a child by contact. During the punishment phase, appellant pleaded true to one enhancement paragraph contained in the indictment. The trial court found the enhancement paragraph true and assessed punishment at ten years’ imprisonment. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which she 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, 811–12 (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. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (noting appellant has right to file pro se response to Anders brief filed by counsel). We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Although not an arguable issue, we note the trial court’s judgment contains an error. Appellant was convicted of indecency with a child by contact, an offense that is subject to the sex offender registration requirements of Chapter 62 of the code of criminal procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 62.001(5)(A) (West Supp. 2016). The judgment erroneously states the sex offender registration requirements do not apply and that the age of the victim at the time of the offense is “N/A.” 1 On our own motion, we modify the judgment to show that sex offender registration requirements apply and the victim’s age was fourteen years at the time of the offense. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 62.051 (West Supp. 2016); 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. /Robert M. Fillmore/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 161320F.U05 1 During the trial, the complainant testified she was seventeen years of age, but that the abuse began when she was twelve years of age and she was fourteen years of age at the time of the charged offense. –2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT DEDREK SHANIEL ROBINSON, Appellant No. 05-16-01320-CR On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F14-14233-J. Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore. Justices Bridges and Stoddart participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows: The section entitled “Sex Offender Registration Requirements” is modified to show “Sex Offender Registration Requirements apply to the Defendant. The age of the victim at the time of the offense was 14 years.” As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment. Judgment entered this 28th day of September, 2017. –3–

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.