Özet: Finally, SANIK MUSTAFA TEKİNİN, after requesting an appeal within the legal period, stated in his petition dated 15.05.2025 that he wished to waive his appeal right and have his case confirmed. However, upon clarification of his request in a record dated 18.02.2026, he stated that he wanted to exercise his appeal right. Therefore, the established judgment regarding sanık Mustafa Tekin is subject to appeal. The defense lawyer, who submitted the appeal, has the right and authority to appeal the judgment, the appeal was filed within the legal period, and the appeal petition includes grounds for appeal. No situation was found that would necessitate the rejection of the appeal. Therefore, the case has been reviewed, and the details are as follows. I. LEGAL PROCESS A. First Degree Court Decision Gaziantep 3rd High Criminal Courts decision dated 10.01.2025, with main number 2024/651 and decision number 2025/19, sentenced sanık Mustafa Tekin for the crime of manufacturing and trafficking drugs or stimulants. He was sentenced to 8 years and 4 months of imprisonment and a judicial fine of 83,300.00 TL, along with deprivation of certain rights, in accordance with articles 188/3, 62, 52/2, and 53 of the Turkish Penal Code (Law No. 5237). B. Regional Court of Appeal Decision Gaziantep Regional Court of Appeal 10th Criminal Chambers decision dated 07.05.2025, with main number 2025/5111 and decision number 2025/2625, rejected the appeal applications of the defendant and his lawyer against the judgment made by the first instance court, on merits, in accordance with Article 280/1-a of Law No. 5271. II. APPEAL A. Grounds for Appeal Defendants lawyers appeal request: The lawyer argued that the crime attributed to the defendant was not proven, there was no evidence in the file to suggest the defendant acted with commercial intent, the defendant possessed the substances for personal use, the amount of substances acquired by the defendant was not excessive given his economic situation, the defendant used the substance, and his actions should be evaluated under Article 191 of Law No. 5237. The lawyer claimed that the judgment was based on an erroneous evaluation. B. Evaluation and Rationale According to the case file, upon receiving intelligence that sanık Mustafa Tekin was selling drugs and possessed a sensitive scale at his residence, law enforcement officers began physical surveillance in front of his residence. During the surveillance, a vehicle with license plate number 27 * stopped in front of sanık Mustafa Tekins residence. The driver was sanık ... (not under review), and the front passenger was sanık ... (not under review). ........ got out of the car and went to sanık Mustafa Tekins residence. ........ gave money to sanık Mustafa Tekin, and sanık Mustafa Tekin gave ........ a white bag. ....... left the residence and got into the car driven by ......... Through uninterrupted pursuit, the car was later stopped by force, and during a search conducted with the written order of the public prosecutor, 52 packages of a substance known as "skunk," each wrapped separately in cling film, were found in a white bag inside the car. A search of sanık Mustafa Tekins person revealed one package of skunk wrapped in cling film. A search of his residence revealed two separate bags containing a quantity of skunk, 10 packages of skunk wrapped in cling film, two functioning sensitive scales, and a roll of cling film. Regarding the allegation that the defendant was engaged in drug trafficking and possessed the substances found at his residence for this purpose: 1. Regarding sanık Mustafa Tekin: The fact that the quantity of drugs seized from the defendant necessitated an increase in the sentence from the lower limit was not considered. However, since there was no appeal to the detriment of the defendant, this was not made a ground for reversal. 2. It was understood that the procedures in the judicial process were carried out in accordance with procedure and law, and the allegations and defenses put forth during the stages were discussed and presented in the reasoned decision, along with sufficient evidence collected within the scope of the file. The judgment is based on ...Sanık ...ın temyiz isteminden vazgeçtiği dilekçesindeki talebin açıklattırılması sonucunda "Yargıtay temyiz hakkından istemiyorum, feragat ediyorum, dosyamın onanmasını istiyorum" şeklinde bu hususu ifade ettiği ve temyiz davasının istek şartına bağlı olduğu anlaşılmakla, 5271 sayılı Ceza Muhakemesi Kanunu’nun 266/1. maddesi uyarınca temyiz isteminden vazgeçme nedeniyle dava dosyasının sanık ... yönünden incelenmeksizin iadesine karar verilmesi gerektiği sonucuna varılmıştır. KARAR : Yukarıda açıklanan nedenlerle; 1. Sanıklar ... ve ... müdafiileri ile sanık ...ın temyizden feragat etmeleri nedeniyle 5271 sayılı Ceza Muhakemesi Kanununun 266/1. maddesi uyarınca temyiz istemleri hakkında "incelenmeksizin iade" kararı verilmesine, 2. Dosyanın sanıklar ... ve ... yönünden Bölge Adliye Mahkemesine, sanık ... yönünden ise Yargıtay Cumhuriyet Başsavcılığına TEVDİİNE, 29.02.2026 tarihinde oy birliğiyle karar verildi.