Anthony Henry McKinzie v. The State of Texas Appeal from 219th Judicial District Court of Collin County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MODIFY and AFFIRM; and Opinion November 29, 2017. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-16-01505-CR ANTHONY HENRY MCKINZIE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 219-80701-2016 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang-Miers, Fillmore, and Stoddart Opinion by Justice Lang-Miers A jury convicted Anthony Henry McKinzie of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and assessed punishment at twelve years’ 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, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (determining whether brief meets requirements of Anders). 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 incorrectly omits the deadly weapon finding. Appellant was indicted for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, a firearm. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03 (West 2011). The jury found appellant guilty of “aggravated robbery as charged in the indictment.” The trial court’s judgment recites the findings on deadly weapon as “N/A.” Accordingly, on our own motion, we modify the judgment to show the findings on deadly weapon is “yes, a firearm.” TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (courts of appeals have authority to modify a judgment); Estrada v. State, 334 S.W.3d 57, 63–64 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) (same). As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. /Elizabeth Lang-Miers/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 161505F.U05 –2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT ANTHONY HENRY MCKINZIE, Appellant No. 05-16-01505-CR On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 219-80701-2016. Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers. Justices Fillmore 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 “Findings on Deadly Weapon” is modified to show “Yes, a Firearm.” As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment. Judgment entered this 29th day of November, 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.
