Kenneth Lowe v. The State of TexasAppeal from 221st District Court of Montgomery County (memorandum opinion by chief justice mckeithen)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-13-00042-CR NO. 09-13-00109-CR NO. 09-13-00110-CR NO. 09-13-00111-CR NO. 09-13-00112-CR NO. 09-13-00113-CR ____________________ KENNETH LOWE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 221st District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 12-08-08497 CR, Counts 1 - 6 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Kenneth Lowe1 pleaded guilty to indecency with a child by sexual contact, improper photography, and four counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child. The trial court sentenced Lowe to two years in prison for indecency, 180 days in state jail for improper photography, and life in prison for each of the aggravated sexual 1 Lowe is also referred to in the record as Kenneth Shaun Lowe. 1 assault offenses. The trial court ordered that the sentences for aggravated sexual assault run consecutively. Lowe s appellate counsel filed briefs that present counsel s professional evaluation of the record and conclude Lowe s appeals are frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of time for Lowe to file a pro se brief, but we received no response from Lowe. We have determined that these appeals are wholly frivolous. We have independently examined the clerk s records and the reporter s records, and we agree that no arguable issues support the appeals. We find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). However, we note that the judgment in count V erroneously states that Lowe s sentence shall run consecutively with counts III, VI, and VI of Cause 1208-08497-CR. This Court has the authority to modify the trial court s judgments to correct a clerical error. Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Therefore, we delete the following language from the judgment in Count V, Appeal No. 09-13-00112-CR: III, VI, and VI of Cause 12-08-08497-CR and substitute the following language: III, IV, and VI of Cause 12-08-08497-CR. We affirm the judgment in Count V, Appeal No. 09-13-00112-CV as modified. We 2 affirm the trial court s judgments in Count I, Appeal No. 09-13-00042-CR; Count II, Appeal No. 09-13-00109-CR; Count III, Appeal No. 09-13-00110-CR; Count IV, Appeal No. 09-13-00111-CR; and Count VI, Appeal No. 09-13-00113-CR.2 COUNTS I, II, III, IV, AND VI AFFIRMED. COUNT V AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. ________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on January 27, 2014 Opinion Delivered March 5, 2014 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 2 Lowe may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 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.
