NUMBERS 13-25-00598-CR, 13-25-00599-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
RICHARD LEE WEBER A/K/A,
RICHARD LEE WEBER JR., Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
ON APPEAL FROM THE 148TH DISTRICT COURT
OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Silva and Cron
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Tijerina
In appellate cause number 13-25-00598-CR, appellant Richard Lee Weber a/k/a
Richard Lee Weber Jr. pleaded guilty to the offense of attempted aggravated sexual
assault of a child, a second-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 15.01(a). In appellate cause number 13-25-00599-CR, appellant pleaded guilty to indecency with a child by
exposure, a third-degree felony. See id. § 21.11. The trial court deferred adjudication for
both offenses and placed appellant on community supervision for seven years. The State
filed a motion to revoke, and at the hearing, appellant pleaded “true” to the State’s
allegations. The trial court revoked appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated him
guilty of the offenses, and sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment for the attempted
aggravated sexual assault of a child offense, and ten years’ imprisonment for the
indecency with a child offense with both sentences to run concurrently. Appellant’s courtappointed counsel has filed an Anders brief stating that there are no arguable grounds
for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm the trial court’s
judgment in cause number 13-25-00598-CR as modified, and we affirm the trial court’s
judgment in cause number 13-25-00599-CR.
I. ANDERS BRIEF
Pursuant to Anders v. California, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel
filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court in both causes, stating that her review
of the record yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal could be
predicated. See id. Counsel’s briefs meet the requirements of Anders as they present a
professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on
appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig.
proceeding) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points
of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and
procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.” (citing Hawkins v. State, 112
2
S.W.3d 340, 343–44 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2003, no pet.))); Stafford v.
State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014),
appellant’s counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no
reversible error in the trial court’s judgments. Appellant’s counsel also informed this Court
in writing that in both causes she: (1) notified appellant that counsel has filed an Anders
brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided appellant with copies of both pleadings;
(3) informed appellant of his right to file a pro se response, to review the record prior to
filing that response, and to seek discretionary review if we conclude that the appeal is
frivolous; and (4) provided appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate
record that only requires appellant’s signature and date with instructions to file the motion
within ten days. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20; see also In
re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408–09. Appellant did not file a pro se response in either
cause.
II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the
proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief in both causes, and we
have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178
S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by
indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the
3
record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511.
III. MODIFICATION OF TRIAL COURT’S JUDGMENT
“[A]ppellate courts are authorized to reform judgments and affirm as modified in
Anders cases involving non-reversible error.” Mitchell v. State, 653 S.W.3d 295, 297 (Tex.
App.—Texarkana 2022, no pet.) (collecting cases that have modified judgments in Anders
cases). In appellate cause number 13-25-00598-CR, the judgment correctly describes
the offense as attempted aggravated sexual assault of a child but lists the statute for the
offense as “22.021” of the penal code. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.021 (listing the
elements for aggravated sexual assault). However, the record shows that appellant was
convicted of attempted aggravated sexual assault of a child rather than the underlying
consummated offense. See id. § 15.01 (listing the elements for an attempted offense). As
a result, the judgment should have listed Texas Penal Code Section 15.01, not
Section 22.021, as the statute for offense. See Parfait v. State, 120 S.W.3d 348, 351
(Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (explaining that a person found guilty of an attempted offense is
convicted under Section 15.01, not the underlying Penal Code provision); see also Torres
v. State, No. 05-22-00314-CR, 2023 WL 4861780, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 31, 2023,
no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (modifying the judgment by removing
“21.11” after the phrase “Statute of Offense” and replacing that with “15.01”). Accordingly,
we modify the judgment to reflect that appellant was convicted under Texas Penal Code
Section 15.01(a) by removing “22.021(a)(2)(B)” after the phrase “Statute for Offense” and
replacing it with “15.01(a).”
4
IV. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders, appellant’s counsel has asked this Court for
permission to withdraw as counsel in both causes. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also
In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17. We grant counsel’s motions to withdraw. Within
five days from the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this
opinion and this Court’s judgments to appellant and to advise him of his right to file a
petition for discretionary review in both causes. 1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2006).
V. CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment in appellate cause number 13-25-00598-CR
as modified. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in appellate cause number 13-25-00599-CR.
JAIME TIJERINA
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed on the
20th day of August, 2026.
1 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case
by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See id. R. 68.4.
5