Abdallah Babiker v. the State of Texas

Opinion

Opinion issued August 6, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

20 years in prison for the aggravated assault.1 The trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently. Babiker appealed.

Babiker’s appointed counsel has now filed a motion to withdraw, along with an Anders brief, stating that the record presents no reversible error and that the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).

Counsel states in his brief that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and is unable to advance any ground of error that warrants reversal. See id.; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements because it presents a professional evaluation of the record and supplies this Court with references to the record and legal authority. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

Further, Babiker’s counsel informed this Court that he mailed a copy of the motion to withdraw and the Anders brief to Babiker and informed him of his right to access the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408– 09.2

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE §§ 19.02, 22.02(a)(2).

2 Subsequently, this Court also notified Babiker at his last known address of his right to access the record and file a response and provided him with a form motion to

3

Babiker filed a pro se response to the Anders brief.

The State filed a waiver of its right to file a response to the Anders brief.

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal. See Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155. And we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable grounds for review, and that the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel— determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.3 See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a). Attorney Stephen Aslett must immediately send the required notice and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.

access the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 321–22 (Tex. Crim. App.

2014).

3 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform Babiker of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). An appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review. See id. at 827 & n.6.

4

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guiney and Johnson. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Footnotes

1. NO. 01-25-00459-CR NO. 01-25-00460-CR ——————————— ABDALLAH BABIKER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 497th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case Nos. 1739366, 1739367 MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted Abdallah Babiker of murder and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and assessed a punishment of 32 years in prison for the murder and