From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Goldman v. State

State of Texas in the Eleventh Court of Appeals
Oct 5, 2017
No. 11-17-00086-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 5, 2017)

Opinion

No. 11-17-00086-CR

10-05-2017

ANTHONY MAXIMILLIAN GOLDMAN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


On Appeal from the 70th District Court Ector County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. A-16-1470-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The jury convicted Anthony Maximillian Goldman of the offense of possession of less than one gram of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, which is a state jail felony. The jury assessed punishment at confinement for fifteen months in a state jail facility, and the trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly. We dismiss the appeal.

Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief and a copy of the motion to withdraw. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel's brief. Counsel provided Appellant with copies of the clerk's record and reporter's record. Appellant has not filed a pro se response.

This court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel's brief.

Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.

We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise Appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 ("In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant's right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review under Rule 68."). Likewise, this court advises Appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68.

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM October 5, 2017 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
Willson, J., and Bailey, J.


Summaries of

Goldman v. State

State of Texas in the Eleventh Court of Appeals
Oct 5, 2017
No. 11-17-00086-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 5, 2017)
Case details for

Goldman v. State

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY MAXIMILLIAN GOLDMAN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:State of Texas in the Eleventh Court of Appeals

Date published: Oct 5, 2017

Citations

No. 11-17-00086-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 5, 2017)