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.
On appeal, Babiker’s appointed counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw, representing 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 its right to respond.
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, presented no arguable ground for review, and showed that the appeals were frivolous.
The court affirmed both trial-court judgments and granted appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw. It also directed counsel to provide the required notice, dismissed any other pending motions as moot, and noted that Babiker could pursue discretionary review on his own in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court considering an Anders brief must independently examine the entire record rather than rely solely on counsel’s assessment.
- The court found no arguable appellate issue even after considering Babiker’s pro se response.
- The murder and aggravated-assault judgments, carrying concurrent sentences of 32 and 20 years, were affirmed.
Why It Matters
The memorandum opinion illustrates the procedure Texas appellate courts follow when appointed counsel concludes that a criminal appeal is frivolous. Counsel must provide a professional evaluation of the record and notify the defendant of the right to inspect the record and respond, while the court retains responsibility for deciding whether any arguable ground exists.
Here, the court’s independent review ended both appeals without merits briefing on a particular claim, leaving the convictions and concurrent sentences intact while preserving Babiker’s ability to seek discretionary review pro se.