Opinion
10-22-00155-CR 10-22-00158-CR
04-05-2023
ADNAN GUS SHAMI, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do not publish
From the 85th District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 19-04682-CRF-85 and No. 20-00063-CRM-85
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith
MEMORANDUM OPINION
TOM GRAY CHIEF JUSTICE
Adnan Gus Shami was convicted of Possession with Intent to Deliver a Controlled Substance over 400 grams and Unlawfully Carrying a Weapon. We affirm the trial court's judgments.
Shami's appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in support of the motion in each appeal asserting that he diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeals are frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel's briefs evidence a professional counsel. We conclude that counsel has performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is "wholly frivolous" or "without merit" when it "lacks any basis in law or fact." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n. 10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). After a review of the entire record in these appeals, we have determined the appeals to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgments.
Counsel's motions to withdraw from representation of Shami are granted.
Affirmed; motions granted.