TONY DONALD BOBILLO v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (2012)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion By Justice Myers

Tony Donald Bobillo waived a jury and pleaded guilty to forgery of a government instrument, currency.   See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.21(b), (e)(1) (West 2011).   Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court assessed punishment at two years' imprisonment, probated for four years, and a $2,000 fine.   The State later moved to revoke appellant's community supervision, alleging several violations.   In a joint revocation and open plea hearing, appellant pleaded true to the allegations in the motion to revoke, and he waived a jury and pleaded guilty to one fraudulent use/possession of identifying information offense and three credit card abuse offenses.   See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 32.31(b), 32.51(b)(1), (c)(4).   The trial court revoked appellant's community supervision and assessed punishment of two years' imprisonment for the forgery conviction.   The trial court also found appellant guilty of the other offenses and assessed punishment at eight years' imprisonment for the fraudulent use/possession of identifying information conviction and 540 days' confinement in a state jail for each credit card abuse conviction.¹

On appeal, appellant's attorney filed briefs in which he concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit.   The briefs meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).   The briefs present 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, 811 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978).   Counsel delivered copies of the briefs to appellant.   We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response.

We have reviewed the records and counsel's briefs.   See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (explaining appellate court's duty in Anders cases).   We agree the appeals are frivolous and without merit.   We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals.

We affirm the trial court's judgments.

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE

Do Not Publish

Tex.R.App. P. 47

110335F.U05

S

Court of AppealsFifth District of Texas at DallasJUDGMENT

TONY DONALD BOBILLO, Appellant

No. 05–11–00335–CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, AppelleeAppeal from the 265th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas.  (Tr.Ct.No.F09–59566–R).

Opinion delivered by Justice Myers, Justices Morris and Moseley participating.

Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered July 12, 2012.

/Lana Myers/

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE

S

Court of AppealsFifth District of Texas at DallasJUDGMENT

TONY DONALD BOBILLO, Appellant

No. 05–11–00336–CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, AppelleeAppeal from the 265th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas.  (Tr.Ct.No.F09–73117–R).

Opinion delivered by Justice Myers, Justices Morris and Moseley participating.

Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered July 12, 2012.

/Lana Myers/

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE

S

Court of AppealsFifth District of Texas at DallasJUDGMENT

TONY DONALD BOBILLO, Appellant

No. 05–11–00337–CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, AppelleeAppeal from the 265th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas.  (Tr.Ct.No.F10–11135–R).

Opinion delivered by Justice Myers, Justices Morris and Moseley participating.

Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered July 12, 2012.

/Lana Myers/

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE

S

Court of AppealsFifth District of Texas at DallasJUDGMENT

TONY DONALD BOBILLO, Appellant

No. 05–11–00338–CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, AppelleeAppeal from the 265th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas.  (Tr.Ct.No.F10–30760–R).

Opinion delivered by Justice Myers, Justices Morris and Moseley participating.

Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered July 12, 2012.

/Lana Myers/

S

Court of AppealsFifth District of Texas at DallasJUDGMENT

TONY DONALD BOBILLO, Appellant

No. 05–11–00339–CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, AppelleeAppeal from the 265th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas.  (Tr.Ct.No.F10–30919–R).

Opinion delivered by Justice Myers, Justices Morris and Moseley participating.

Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered July 12, 2012.

/Lana Myers/

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The February 4, 2010 judgment of conviction placing appellant on community supervision stated the punishment and place of confinement as “2 years State Jail Division, TDCJ.” Appellant was sentenced to two years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, probated for four years.   The October 26, 2010 judgment revoking supervision correctly states the sentence is to be served in the Institutional Division.   Because the judgment placing him on community supervision is no longer in effect, see Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497, 502 (Tex.Crim.App.2004);  McCoy v. State, 81 S.W.3d 917, 919 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2002, pet. ref'd), we do not modify it..  FN1. The February 4, 2010 judgment of conviction placing appellant on community supervision stated the punishment and place of confinement as “2 years State Jail Division, TDCJ.” Appellant was sentenced to two years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, probated for four years.   The October 26, 2010 judgment revoking supervision correctly states the sentence is to be served in the Institutional Division.   Because the judgment placing him on community supervision is no longer in effect, see Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497, 502 (Tex.Crim.App.2004);  McCoy v. State, 81 S.W.3d 917, 919 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2002, pet. ref'd), we do not modify it.

LANA MYERS JUSTICE