DISMISS and Opinion Filed March 15, 2022 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-01048-CR 

No. 05-21-01049-CR 

No. 05-21-01050-CR 

No. 05-21-01051-CR 

No. 05-21-01052-CR 

No. 05-21-01053-CR 

TONY DONALD BOBILLO, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause Nos. F21-11861-U, F20-12281-U, F20-12361-U, F20-12362-

U, F20-72038-U & F20-72174-U 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Reichek, and Goldstein 

Opinion by Justice Goldstein 

Tony Donald Bobillo appeals his convictions for third degree felony theft of 

property valued between $30,000 and $150,000, three state jail felony offenses of 

credit/debit card abuse, and two state jail felony thefts of property valued between 

$2500 and $30,000. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 31.03(e)(4), (5), 32.31(d). Each state 

jail felony was enhanced by two prior state jail felony convictions, making the 

punishment range for those five offenses the same as the punishment range for the 
 –2– 

third degree felony theft offense, i.e., a “term of not more than 10 years or less than 

two years.” Id. §§ 12.34, 12.425(a). The trial court assessed punishment at five years 

for each offense, to be served concurrently. Appellant then appealed his convictions. 

For the reasons that follow, we dismiss these appeals. 

 After reviewing the clerk’s records, the reporter’s record, and the documents 

filed along with the notices of appeal, the Court had concerns regarding its 

jurisdiction over these appeals. We instructed the parties to file jurisdictional briefs. 

Appellant responded that he properly invoked this Court’s jurisdiction by filing 

notices of appeal, citing Garza v. Idaho, 139 S.Ct. 738, 747 (2019). In contrast, the 

State agreed with this Court’s assessment that appellant waived his right to appeal 

when the trial court followed the terms of his plea bargain agreements with the State. 

A defendant in a criminal case has the right of appeal as set out in the code of 

criminal procedure and the rules of appellate procedure. See TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. art. 44.02; TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a). Rule 25.2 provides that in “a plea-bargain 

case—that is, a case in which a defendant’s plea was guilty . . . and the punishment 

did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the 

defendant,” a defendant may appeal only “those matters that were raised by written 

motion filed and ruled on before trial,” “after getting the trial court’s permission to 

appeal,” or “where the specific appeal is expressly authorized by statute.” TEX. R.

APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). When an appellant waives his right to appeal as part of his plea 

bargain agreement with the State, a subsequent notice of appeal filed by him fails to 
 –3– 

“initiate the appellate process,” thereby depriving this Court of jurisdiction over the 

appeal. Lundgren v. State, 434 S.W.3d 594, 599, 600 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). 

Here, appellant entered into plea bargain agreements with the State in which 

the State waived its right to a jury trial and agreed to a term of five years for each 

offense, to be served concurrently. In exchange, appellant agreed to plead guilty and 

waive his right to appeal. The agreements were signed by appellant, his legal 

counsel, the representative for the State, and the trial court. The judgments and 

reporter’s record show the trial court followed the plea bargain agreements. The 

clerk’s records show there were no adverse rulings on any pretrial written motions. 

And each trial court’s certification of appellant’s right to appeal states the case 

involves a plea bargain agreement, appellant has no right to appeal, and appellant 

waived his right of appeal. Thus, the trial court did not give permission to appeal. 

Finally, in his notice of appeal and jurisdictional letter brief, appellant did not 

identify any statute that expressly authorized his appeals. Under these circumstances, 

appellant’s notices of appeal are ineffective to initiate the appellate process, and we 

lack jurisdiction over the appeals. 

 
 –4– 

We dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction.

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) 

211048F.U05 

 

/Bonnie Lee Goldstein/

BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN 

JUSTICE 
 –5– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

TONY DONALD BOBILLO, 

Appellant 

No. 05-21-01048-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 291st Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F21-11861-U. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Goldstein. Justices Partida-Kipness 

and Reichek participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal for want 

of jurisdiction. 

Judgment entered March 15, 2022 

 
 –6– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

TONY DONALD BOBILLO, 

Appellant 

No. 05-21-01049-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 291st Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F20-12281-U. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Goldstein. Justices Partida-Kipness 

and Reichek participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal for want 

of jurisdiction. 

Judgment entered March 15, 2022. 

 
 –7– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

TONY DONALD BOBILLO, 

Appellant 

No. 05-21-01050-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 291st Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F20-12361-U. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Goldstein. Justices Partida-Kipness 

and Reichek participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal for want 

of jurisdiction. 

Judgment entered March 15, 2022 

 
 –8– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

TONY DONALD BOBILLO, 

Appellant 

No. 05-21-01051-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 291st Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F20-12362-U. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Goldstein. Justices Partida-Kipness 

and Reichek participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal for want 

of jurisdiction. 

Judgment entered March 15, 2022 

 
 –9– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

TONY DONALD BOBILLO, 

Appellant 

No. 05-21-01052-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 291st Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F20-72038-U. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Goldstein. Justices Partida-Kipness 

and Reichek participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal for want 

of jurisdiction. 

Judgment entered March 15, 2022. 

 
 –10– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

TONY DONALD BOBILLO, 

Appellant 

No. 05-21-01053-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 291st Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F20-72174-U. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Goldstein. Justices Partida-Kipness 

and Reichek participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal for want 

of jurisdiction. 

Judgment entered March 15, 2022.