                                      In The

                               Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                              __________________

                              NO. 09-19-00241-CR
                              NO. 09-19-00242-CR
                              NO. 09-19-00243-CR
                              __________________

                         McKINZIE BOWIE, Appellant

                                        V.

                  THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________

                 On Appeal from the 435th District Court
                        Montgomery County, Texas
    Trial Cause Nos. 18-05-06356-CR; 18-05-06357-CR; 18-05-06358-CR
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      A grand jury indicted McKinzie Bowie for the first-degree felony offense of

aggravated robbery and the state jail felony offenses of unauthorized use of a motor

vehicle and fraudulent possession of identifying information. See Tex. Penal Code

Ann. §§ 29.03(a)(2), 31.07, 32.51. Pursuant to an open plea agreement, Bowie pled

guilty to the three offenses. The trial court sentenced him to forty years of


                                         1
confinement for the aggravated robbery and one year of confinement for each of the

other offenses, to run concurrently. See id. §§ 12.32(a), 12.35(a). The trial court

certified Bowie’s right to appeal in each cause, and he timely appealed.

      Bowie’s appellate counsel presented a professional evaluation of the records

in all three causes and concluded there were no meritorious issues for appeal. See

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.

Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Bowie did not file a pro se brief. We have

independently reviewed the records in their entirety. Based on our review of the

records, we conclude no arguable issues exist to support an appeal in these causes,

and there is no reversible error. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to appoint new

counsel to re-brief the appeals. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1991).

      AFFIRMED.

                                                   _________________________
                                                        CHARLES KREGER
                                                             Justice

Submitted on March 25, 2020
Opinion Delivered April 15, 2020
Do Not Publish

Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.



                                         2
