Nicolas Bradley Bardin v. The State of Texas Appeal from 86th Judicial District Court of Kaufman County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 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); –2– 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. /Lana Myers// 210052f.u05 210053f.u05 210054f.u05 Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) LANA MYERS JUSTICE –3– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT NICOLAS BRADLEY BARDIN, Appellant No. 05-21-00052-CR On Appeal from the 86th Judicial District Court, Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 19-90316-86F. Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. Justices Partida-Kipness and Carlyle participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 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. –4– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT NICOLAS BRADLEY BARDIN, Appellant No. 05-21-00053-CR On Appeal from the 86th Judicial District Court, Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 19-90317-86F. Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. Justices Partida-Kipness and Carlyle participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 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. 05-21-00054-CR On Appeal from the 86th Judicial District Court, Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 19-90318-86F. Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. Justices Partida-Kipness and Carlyle participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 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–
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.
