Olivia Nicole Bartee v. The State of TexasAppeal from 258th District Court of Polk County (memorandum opinion by chief justice mckeithen)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 2 The judgments erroneously state that Bartee pleaded true. 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
