In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
________________
NO. 09-12-00320-CR
NO. 09-12-00321-CR
________________
OLIVIA NICOLE BARTEE, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 258th District Court
Polk County, Texas
Trial Cause Nos. 21857, 22192
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Olivia Nicole Bartee pleaded guilty to engaging in organized
criminal activity and burglary of a vehicle. The trial court found the evidence
sufficient to find Bartee guilty, but deferred further proceedings and placed Bartee
on community supervision for five years in the engaging in organized criminal
activity case and one year in the burglary of a vehicle case. The State subsequently
filed a motion to adjudicate guilt in each case. Bartee pleaded “not true” to all of
the alleged violations of the conditions of her community supervision in each
1
case.1 After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that Bartee
violated the conditions of her community supervision, found Bartee guilty of
engaging in organized criminal activity and burglary of a vehicle, and assessed
punishment at ten years of confinement in the engaging in organized criminal
activity case and one year of confinement in the burglary of a vehicle case.
Bartee’s appellate counsel filed briefs that present counsel’s professional
evaluation of the records and conclude the appeals are frivolous. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On November 21, 2012, we granted an
extension of time for Bartee to file pro se briefs. We received no response from
Bartee.
We have reviewed the appellate records, and we agree with counsel’s
conclusion that no arguable issues support the appeals. Therefore, 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). We affirm the trial
court’s judgments.2
1
The judgments erroneously state that Bartee pleaded “true.”
2
Bartee may challenge our decision in these cases by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
2
AFFIRMED.
_________________________________
STEVE McKEITHEN
Chief Justice
Submitted on March 5, 2013
Opinion Delivered March 27, 2013
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.
3