Court Opinion

ID: 9385542
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-07 09:11:16.331187+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:02.604386
License: Public Domain

IN THE
                           TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

                                  No. 10-22-00155-CR
                                  No. 10-22-00158-CR

ADNAN GUS SHAMI,
                                                              Appellant
v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                                              Appellee

                           From the 85th District Court
                              Brazos County, Texas
                      Trial Court Nos. 19-04682-CRF-85 and
                              No. 20-00063-CRM-85

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

       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
evaluation of the record for error and compliance with the other duties of appointed

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.

                                           TOM GRAY
                                           Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,
       Justice Johnson, and
       Justice Smith
Affirmed; motions granted
Opinion delivered and filed April 5, 2023
Do not publish
[CR25]

Shami v. State                                                                           Page 2