Opinion issued August 6, 2026
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
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 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
2
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.
3
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guiney and Johnson.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
4