## NO S . 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 114T H

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUN TY, 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.

B ACKGROUND 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

s upervision. 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, ad judicated Appellant’s guilt, and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for sixteen years in each case. This appeal followed.

A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V

. C ALIFORNIA Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainou s 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 argu able, 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 cont ains 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.
Conc lusion 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 m otion 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 48.4; In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Sh ould 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary
review must be file d with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP

. 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. Opinio n 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 wit h 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

- 0022 2

- 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, A DJUDGED 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.