M ORE L AW
LEXAPEDIA
Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto

Information
About MoreLaw
Contact MoreLaw

Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 07-10-2018

Case Style:

Dror Haim Goldberg v. The State of Texas

Case Number: 01-17-00713-CR

Judge: PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Lloyd.

Court: Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas

Plaintiff's Attorney: Daniel C. McCrory
The Honorable Kim K Ogg

Defendant's Attorney: Nicholas Mensch

Description: Appellant, Dror Haim Goldberg, was convicted of murder and sentenced to
48 years in prison. We affirmed the trial court’s judgment in a published opinion.
See Goldberg v. State, 95 S.W.3d 345 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet.
ref’d). Appellant then filed a post-conviction motion for forensic DNA testing. See
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 64.01(a-1). The trial court granted the motion.
See id. art. 64.03(a), (c). Upon receiving the test results, the trial court found that
the results were not favorable to appellant and that it is not reasonably probable that
appellant would not have been convicted had the results been available during the
trial of the offense. See id. art. 64.04. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. See
id. art. 64.05.
Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along
with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and therefore
the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,
87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Counsel has informed us that he has delivered to appellant a
copy of the brief, a copy of the entire record of the DNA proceedings, a copy of the
original trial record, and a pro se motion for access to the appellate record in the
event that appellant wishes to file a pro se response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d
403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Despite having over four months to do so,
appellant has not filed a pro se response.
Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal
authority. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly
reviewed the record and that he is unable to advance any grounds of error that
3

warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State,
193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we
conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable
grounds for review, and that therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S.
at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (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) (reviewing
court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State,
178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at
155 (reviewing court determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire
record). An appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds
for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Court of Criminal
Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.

Outcome: We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw.1

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



 
 
Home | Add Attorney | Add Expert | Add Court Reporter | Sign In
Find-A-Lawyer By City | Find-A-Lawyer By State and City | Articles | Recent Lawyer Listings
Verdict Corrections | Link Errors | Advertising | Editor | Privacy Statement
© 1996-2018 MoreLaw, Inc. - All rights reserved.