1 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 2 ... S eeT e x . H e a l th & S a fe tyC o d e A n n . § 4 8 1 .1 1 5 (d ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ).



## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO S. 2- 08- 068- CR 2- 08- 069- CR NAT HAN K . M YE R S AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 396TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A ppe l l antN at han K. M yer s ent er ed t w o ope n pl ea s ofgui l t y t o pos se ss i on off ourgr am s orm or e butl ess t h a n 2 0 0 g ram s ofa cont r ol l ed subst ance (m e th a m p h e ta m i n e ), 2 a nd h e p l e a de d t r ue t o t he h a bi t ua l o f f e nd e rnot i ce contai ned i n each char ge. The t r i al cour tf oun d h i m gui l t y and assessed3 ... 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 , 8 7 S . C t. 1 3 9 6 (1 9 6 7 ). 2 pun i shm entatt w ent y- f i ve year s’ conf i nem enti n each case, t o be ser ved c o n c u rre n tl y . M yer s’ s cour t - appo i nt ed appel l at e co unsel has f i l ed a m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw as co uns el an d a b r i efi n s upportoft hatm ot i on. Couns el ’ s br i efan d m ot i on m e e t t h e req u i rem e n ts o f A n de r s v. Ca lif

o r n ia 3 by pr esent i ng a pr of essi onal eva l uat i on oft he r ec or d de m ons t r at i ng w hy t her e a r e no ar gua bl e g r ounds f or r el i ef . M yer s w as gi ven t he opport uni t y t o f i l e a pr o se br i ef , but he di d notdo so . A s t he r evi ew i ng c ourt , w e m us tco nduc tan i nde pen den tev al uat i on of t he r ec or d t o de t er m i ne w het herco uns el i s cor r ec ti n de t er m i ni ng t hatt he a p p e a l s a re fri v o l o u s . S e eS taffo rd v. S tate , 8 1 3 S . W . 2 d 5 0 3 , 5 1 1 ( T e x . C r i m. A p p . 1 9 9 1 ); Ma ys v. S tate , 9 0 4 S .W .2 d 9 2 0 , 9 2 3 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 1 9 9 5 , n o p e t.). O n l y th e n m a y w e g ra n t c o u n s e l ’s m o ti o n to w i th d ra w . S ee Pen s o n v. O h io , 48 8 U . S . 75 , 82 –8 3, 10 9 S . C t . 34 6, 35 1 ( 19 88 ) . Because M yer s ent er ed ope n pl ea s ofgui l t y, ouri nde pen den tr evi ew f orpot ent i al er r or i s l i m i t ed t o potent i al j ur i sdi ct i onal d ef ect s, the vol untar i ness ofM yer s’ s pl eas, er r ort hati s noti nde pen den tofan d s up port s t he j udgm entofgui l t , an d e r r or o c c u rri n g a fte r e n tryo f th e g u i l typ l e a s . S e eMo n rea l v. S tate , 99 S . W . 3d 615,3

6 2 0 , 6 2 2 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ); Yo ungv. S tate , 8 S. W . 3d 656, 666– 67 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 0 ). W e have car ef ul l y r evi ew ed t he r ecor d, i ncl udi ng t he seal ed pr esent ence i nve st i gat i on r epo r tan d c ouns el ’ s br i ef . W e a gr ee w i t h couns el t hatt he a p p e a l s a re w h o l l y fri v o l o u s a n d w i th o u t m e ri t. W e fi n d n o th i n g i n th e re c o rd th a t m i g h t a rg u a b l ys u p p o rt th e a p p e a l s . S ee Bledsoe v. State, 178 S. W . 3d 8 2 4 , 8 2 7

– 2 8 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ); a c c o rd M eza v. S ta te, 206 S . W . 3d 684, 6 8 5 n .6 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). W e the refo re g ran t co u n se l ’s m o ti o n to w i t hdr aw and af f i r m t he t r i al cour t ’ s j udg m enti n each case.

P E R CU R I AM P A N E L : M C C O Y , J .; C A Y C E , C .J .; a n d L IV IN G S T O N , J . DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: F e br ua r y 19, 2009