COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

NASHEED DAHOOD QEWAR , Appellant ,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee. § § § § § § No. 08

- 13

- 00 313

- C R

Appeal from the
219 th Judicial District Court
of Collin County , Texas (TC# 219

- 80394

- 2013 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION Nasheed Dahood Qewar appeals the trial court’s judgment convicting him of aggravated robbery and sentencing him to 5 years’ imprisonment . We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND After being indicted for aggravated robbery , Qewar entered an open plea of guilty to the charged offe nse. In conjunction with his open plea, Qewar signed written plea admonishments, which adequately admonished him regarding his rights. In the written admonishments, Qewar waived his right to a jury trial and judicia lly confessed . At the plea hearing, th e trial court accepted Qewar’s plea after admonishing him as to the consequences of his plea , including the full range of applic able punishment, and ascertaining that his plea was free and voluntary. The trial court, however, deferred finding Qewar guilt y until after the conclusion of the hearing , during2

which the two robbery victims , the responding police officer , and Qewar were called to the stand

. The two victims, one of whom recognized Qewar from school , testified that before they

were robbed at knifep oint by two masked men , Qewar had approached them earlier asking for a cigarette. The responding officer testified that Q ewar was found shortly after the robbery with a group of men in possession of the stolen property and that Qewar confessed he “was
app roximately 10 to 15 feet from the offense and had knowledge that the offense was going to occur prior to them talking about it approximately 30 minutes beforehand .” Qewar a dmit ted that he participated in the robbery by being a lookout and that he met up w ith the robbers afterwards

. After considering closing arguments, t he trial court found the evidence sufficient to substantiate guilt, adjudicated Qewar guilty, and assessed punishment. Qewar moved for a new
trial on several grounds, including ineffective a ssistance of counsel

. The trial court set a hearing

on the motion and the State requested the issuance of a subpoena to compel defense counsel to appear and testify at the hearing. The record, however, does not disclose whether the subpoena
was served a nd whether the hearing took place. 1
ANDERS BRIEF Qewar ’s court

- appointed appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 73 8 , 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) ; High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. [panel op .] 1978) (adopting the Anders procedure ) ; see also Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 509

- 11 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). In Anders , the United States Supreme Court recognized that counsel, though appointed to represent the appellant in an appeal from a criminal conviction, had no duty to pursue a frivolous matter on appeal. Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct.

1 A ppellate counsel states in his Anders brief that Qewar “abandoned [the] motion [for new trial] in order to have a more fully developed record for review of this [sic] trial counsel’s representation at the plea hearing by way of Article 11.07 C.C.P. post co nviction writ of habeas corpus.”3

at 1400. C ounsel was thus permitted to withdraw after info rming the court of his conclusion and the effort made in arriving at that conclusion. Id

. In this case , Qewar ’s appellate c ounsel has concluded that, after a thorough review of the record, Qewar ’s appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel’s brief me ets the requirements of
Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced

. See Anders , 38 6 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400. In accordance
with Anders ’ requirements , counsel has moved t o withdraw. As required, counsel provided Qewar with copies of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw , advised Qewar of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief in this Court , and informed this Court, in writing, that he performed the foregoing requirement s
. Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

- 20 (Tex.Crim.App. 2014) ; In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008). Counsel
also satisfied his obligation to “ take concrete measures to initiate and facilitate the p rocess of actuating his client’ s right to review the appellate record, if that is what his client wishes[,]” by providing Qewar with a copy of the appellate record

. Kelly , 436 S.W.3d at 319. 2 Qewar has not
filed a pro se brief.
INDEPENDENT REVIEW
After c ounsel files a proper Anders brief, the court of appeals must conduct its own review of the record to ascertain if there are any arguable grounds for the appeal. Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409; Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 5 11

. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and counsel’s brief

2 C ounsel must also advise his client that he may seek discretionary review by the Te xas Court of Criminal Appeals. Kelly , 436 S.W.3d at 319 ; Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408. Although it is unclear if counsel here satisfied h is obligation, we note that Qewar acknowledged in the trial court’s certification of his right to appeal

— signed by Qewar and defense counsel

— that he had been informed of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of C riminal Appeals within thirty days from the date of this Court’s opinion. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 68.1, 68.2 , 68.3(a), 68.4.4

in this case , and we agree with counsel’s professional assessment that the appeal is frivolous and
without merit

. Because there is nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal, a further discussion of the argua bl e grounds advanced in counsel’ s Anders brief would add nothi ng to the jurisprudence of the S tate.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

October 31 , 2014 YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, J., and Barajas, C.J. (Senior Judge) Barajas, C.J. Senior Judge (Sitting by assignment, not participating) (Do Not Publish)