Grant and Affirm and Opinion Filed November 29, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-21-00052-CR

No. 05-21-00053-CR

No. 05-21-00054-CR

NICOLAS BRADLEY BARDIN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 86th Judicial District Court

Kaufman County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 19-90316-86-F, 19-90317-86-F, & 19-90318-86-F

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Partida-Kipness, and Carlyle

Opinion by Justice Myers

Appellant Nicolas Bradley Bardin was charged in three cases with invasive 

visual recording. He waived his right to a jury trial, entered open pleas of guilty, 

and signed a stipulation of evidence. The trial court assessed punishment in each 

case at 24 months in state jail, with the sentences to be served concurrently. 

Appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported 

by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record 

and applicable law and concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. 

Counsel certifies that he provided appellant with a copy of the brief and the 
–2–

motion to withdraw. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing 

why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 

S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (determining whether brief 

meets requirements of Anders); see also Arevalos v. State, 606 S.W.3d 912, 915–16 

(Tex. App.—Dallas 2020, no pet.) (citing High and concluding Anders brief in 

support of motion to withdraw did not meet requirements of Anders and was 

deficient as to form). We advised appellant by letter of his right to file a pro se 

response, but he has not filed a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 

319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (appellant has right to file pro se response to Anders

brief filed by counsel).

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 

S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in 

Anders cases). We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit, and we find 

nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

Although not an arguable issue, we note that each judgment lists “Erleigh 

Norville Wiley” as the only attorney for the State, when counsel’s brief and the 

reporter’s record show “Justin King” represented the State at trial. When the record 

provides the necessary information to correct inaccuracies in the trial court’s 

judgment, we have the authority to reform the judgment to speak the truth. TEX. R.

APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); 
–3–

Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529–30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d); 

Shumate v State, No. 05-20-00197-CR, 2021 WL 4260768, at *3 (Tex. App.—

Dallas Sept. 20, 2021, no pet.). Accordingly, in each judgment, next to “Attorney 

for State,” we will add the name “Justin King,” to reflect that the “Attorney for State” 

was “Justin King and Erleigh Norville Wiley.” 

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and, as modified, affirm the 

judgments. 

210052f.u05

210053f.u05

210054f.u05

Do Not Publish

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

/Lana Myers//

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
–4–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

NICOLAS BRADLEY BARDIN, 

Appellant

No. 05-21-00052-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 86th Judicial 

District Court, Kaufman County, 

Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 19-90316-86-

F.

Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. 

Justices Partida-Kipness and Carlyle 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

MODIFIED as follows:

Under “Attorney for State,” “Erleigh Norville Wiley” is changed to 

“Justin King and Erleigh Norville Wiley.”

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED. The trial court is directed to 

prepare a corrected judgment that reflects the modifications made in this Court’s 

opinion and judgment in this case. 

Judgment entered this 29th day of November, 2021.
–5–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

NICOLAS BRADLEY BARDIN, 

Appellant

No. 05-21-00053-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 86th Judicial 

District Court, Kaufman County, 

Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 19-90317-86-

F.

Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. 

Justices Partida-Kipness and Carlyle 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

MODIFIED as follows:

Under “Attorney for State,” “Erleigh Norville Wiley” is changed to 

“Justin King and Erleigh Norville Wiley.”

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED. The trial court is directed to 

prepare a corrected judgment that reflects the modifications made in this Court’s 

opinion and judgment in this case. 

Judgment entered this 29th day of November, 2021.
–6–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

NICOLAS BRADLEY BARDIN, 

Appellant

No. 05-21-00054-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 86th Judicial 

District Court, Kaufman County, 

Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 19-90318-86-

F.

Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. 

Justices Partida-Kipness and Carlyle 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

MODIFIED as follows:

Under “Attorney for State,” “Erleigh Norville Wiley” is changed to 

“Justin King and Erleigh Norville Wiley.”

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED. The trial court is directed to 

prepare a corrected judgment that reflects the modifications made in this Court’s 

opinion and judgment in this case. 

Judgment entered this 29th day of November, 2021.