NOS. 12-14-00221-CR

 12-14-00222-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ERIC JOSE BARTOLO, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 114TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Eric Jose Bartolo appeals his convictions for burglary of a habitation. Appellant’s counsel 

filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 

493 (1967), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by indictment in each case with burglary of a habitation. He 

pleaded “guilty” to both charges and was placed on ten years of deferred adjudication community 

supervision. Later, the State filed a motion to proceed with adjudication, alleging that Appellant 

had violated the terms of his community supervision. Appellant pleaded true to all of the 

allegations. The trial court found the allegations to be true, adjudicated Appellant’s guilt, and 

assessed his punishment at imprisonment for sixteen years in each case. This appeal followed. 

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v. 

State. Appellant’s counsel relates that, pursuant to the responsibilities and requirements of the 

governing code of professional conduct, he has thoroughly reviewed the record in these cases. 
2

Counsel further relates that his research revealed no arguable, nonfrivolous grounds for reversal in 

the trial, judgment, or sentence. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history 

of the case, and contains a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no 

arguable grounds to be advanced.1 We have considered counsel’s brief and conducted our own 

independent review of the record. Id. at 811. We have found no reversible error. 

Conclusion

As required by Anders and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1991), Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 

S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for 

consideration with the merits. Having done so, we agree with Appellant’s counsel that the appeal 

is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and affirm the 

judgment of the trial court.

Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy 

of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for 

discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should 

Appellant wish to seek review of these cases by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must 

either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a 

pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed 

within thirty days from the date of this court’s judgment or the date the last timely motion for 

rehearing was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary 

review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any 

petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas 

Rules of Appellate Procedure. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

Opinion delivered July 8, 2015.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

 

1 Counsel for Appellant has certified that he provided Appellant with a copy of this brief. Appellant was 

given time to file his own brief in these causes. The time for filing such a brief has expired, and we have not received 

a pro se brief.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JULY 8, 2015

NO. 12-14-00221-CR

ERIC JOSE BARTOLO,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0819-12)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed 

herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the 

judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment 

of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court 

below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and J., Neeley
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JULY 8, 2015

NO. 12-14-00222-CR

ERIC JOSE BARTOLO,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0820-12)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed 

herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the 

judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment 

of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court 

below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.