                                        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 12-

08-08497-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
