Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
A jury convicted Abdallah Babiker of murder and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. It assessed sentences of 32 years’ imprisonment for murder and 20 years’ imprisonment for aggravated assault, which the trial court ordered to run concurrently.
Babiker’s appointed appellate counsel moved to withdraw and filed an Anders brief stating that a thorough review of the record revealed no reversible error or nonfrivolous ground for appeal. Counsel notified Babiker of his right to review the appellate record and respond, and Babiker filed a pro se response. The State waived a response.
The Court’s Holding
The First Court of Appeals independently reviewed the entire appellate record, including Babiker’s pro se response. It concluded that the record contained no reversible error, no arguable ground for review, and that the appeal was frivolous.
The court affirmed the trial court’s judgments and granted appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw. It directed counsel to provide the required notice, dismissed any other pending motions as moot, and noted that Babiker could independently seek discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court reviewing an Anders brief must independently examine the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous.
- The court found no reversible error or arguable appellate issue in either conviction.
- The convictions and concurrent sentences of 32 years and 20 years remain in effect.
Why It Matters
The memorandum opinion illustrates the procedure Texas appellate courts follow when appointed counsel concludes that a criminal appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue. Counsel’s conclusion does not decide the matter; the appellate court must independently review the proceedings before affirming and permitting counsel to withdraw.