1 ... S ee Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO . 2- 07- 422- CR NO. 2 - 07 - 42 3- CR DOR I AN M AS AK E L L A P OT T E R AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M CRI M I NA LDI STRI CT CO URT NO . 4 OF TARRA NT CO UN TY

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

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I n e ac h c as e, A ppe l l antD or i an M as ak el l a Po t t erpl ed gui l t y t o pos se ss i on ofa cont r ol l ed subst ance, cocai ne, i n an am oun t bet w een f our and t w o hun dr ed gr am s, w i t h i nt entt o del i ver , and pl ed t r ue t o t he r epeatof f enderal l egat i ons. The t r i al co urtf ound hi m gui l t y, f ound t he r epe at of f end er al l ega t i ons t r ue, an d sent e n c e d h i m i n e a c h c a s e t o t we n t yy e a r s ’ c o n f i n e me n ti n t h e I n s t i t u t i onal D i vi si on of t he Texa s D epa rt m ent of C r i m i nal Jus t i ce , w i t h t he se nt enc es t o be2 ... 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 , 8 7 S . C t. 1 3 9 6 (1 9 6 7 ). 3 ... S e e S taffo rd v. S tate , 8 1 3 S .W .2 d 5 0 3 , 5 1 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ); Ma ys v. State, 904 S . W . 2d 920, 922– 23 ( Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h 1995, no p e t.). 4 ... See Pens on v. O hi o, 488 U. S. 75, 82–8 3, 109 S. Ct . 346, 351 (1 9 8 8 ). 2 se r ved co ncu r r ent l y. A p p e l l a n t’ s c o u rt -ap p o i n ted ap p e l l a te c o u n se l h a s f il e d a m o ti o n to
w i t hdr aw as coun sel and a br i efi n suppo rtoft hatm ot i on. I n t he br i ef , counsel a v e rs th a t, i n h i s p ro fe s s i o n a l o p i n i o n , th e s e a p p e a l s a re fri v o l o u s . C o u n s e l ’s b ri e f an d m o ti o n m e e t th e req u i rem e n ts o f A n der sv. Ca lif

o r n ia 2by pr es ent i ng a p r of es si ona l ev al uat i on oft he r ec o rd s dem ons t r at i ng w hy t her e a r e n o a r g u a b le g r o u n d s f o rre lie f . A lt h o u g h A p p e lla n t w a s g iv e n a n o p p o rt u n it y t o f ile a p r o s e b r i ef , he ha s notdone s o. A f t eran appel l ant ’ s cour t - appo i nt ed coun sel f i l es a m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw on t he gr ound t hatt he app ea l i s f r i vol ous a n d f ul f i l l s t he r equ i r em ent s of A n ders , t hi s cou rt i s obl i gat ed t o und ert ak e a n i nde pen den tex am i nat i on oft he
r ec or d. 3 O nl y t hen m ay w e gr ant coun sel ’ s m ot i on to w ith d raw . 4Because A ppel l antent er ed an open pl ea ofgui l t y i n each case, ouri ndep enden tr evi ew f orpot ent i al er r ori s l i m i t ed t o potent i al j ur i sdi ct i onal def ect s, t he vol untar i ness ofhi s pl ea s, er r ort hati s noti nde pen den tofan d s upport s t he j udgm ent s of5 ... S ee Monreal v. State, 9 9 S .W .3 d 6 1 5 , 6 2 0 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ). 6 ... S ee Bledsoe v. State, 178 S . W . 3d 824, 8 2 7

– 2 8 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2 0 0 5 ). 3 gui l t , and er r oroccur r i ng af t erent r y oft he gui l t y pl eas. 5 W e have car ef ul l y r evi ew ed c o u n s e l ’ s br i efand t he r ecor ds. W e agr ee w i t h c ouns el t hatt hes e a ppe al s ar e w hol l y f r i vol ous and w i t houtm er i t ; w e f i nd nothi ng i n t he r ecor ds t hat ar guab l y m i ght suppo rtt he appeal s. 6Accor di ngl y, w e gr antcounsel ’ s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw and af f i r m t he t r i al cour t ’ s j udg m ent s.

P E R CU R I AM PA N EL: DA U PH I N O T, LI V I N G STO N , an d GA RD N ER, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: F e br ua r y 12, 2009