What did the court decide?

The court affirmed Goldthrite’s conviction and held that the trial court did not err in denying his motion for a new trial.

Why did Goldthrite ask for a new trial?

He argued the State failed to comply with statutory procedures in Articles 38.371 and 39.14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which deal with evidence and disclosures.

Who is affected by this decision?

Goldthrite is affected because his conviction stands; the State’s conviction in this case is preserved by the appellate ruling.

Can this decision be appealed further?

The decision could potentially be appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, subject to procedural rules and preservation of issues.

Justin Clayton Goldthrite v. the State of Texas

Docket 06-25-00134-CR

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

Criminal AppealAffirmed

Filed: Apr 20, 2026 · 1 week ago
Jurisdiction: Texas
Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)
Type: Lead Opinion
Case type: Criminal Appeal
Disposition: Affirmed
Docket: 06-25-00134-CR

Appeal from denial of a motion for new trial following a guilty plea to retaliation in a Gregg County district court.

Summary

The Sixth Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the conviction of Justin Clayton Goldthrite for retaliation after reviewing the trial court’s denial of his motion for new trial. Goldthrite argued the State failed to comply with two Texas criminal procedure statutes governing discovery and evidence handling (Articles 38.371 and 39.14). The court applied the same legal standard and analysis it used in a companion appeal and concluded the trial court did not err in denying the motion for new trial, so the judgment was affirmed.

Issues Decided

Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for new trial based on alleged noncompliance by the State with Article 38.371 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for new trial based on alleged noncompliance by the State with Article 39.14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

Court's Reasoning

The court reviewed Goldthrite’s claim under the same legal standard and analysis applied in a companion appeal and found no error in the trial court’s ruling. It determined the State’s compliance (or the alleged noncompliance) with Articles 38.371 and 39.14 did not warrant granting a new trial. Because the trial court’s denial of the motion for new trial was supported under the applied standard, the appellate court affirmed the conviction.

Authorities Cited

Texas Penal Code § 36.06(c)TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 36.06(c) (Supp.)
Article 38.371, Texas Code of Criminal ProcedureTEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.371 (Supp.)
Article 39.14, Texas Code of Criminal ProcedureTEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 39.14 (Supp.)

Parties

Appellant: Justin Clayton Goldthrite
Appellee: The State of Texas
Judge: Scott E. Stevens, Chief Justice

Key Dates

Date Submitted: 2026-04-07
Date Decided: 2026-04-20

What You Should Do Next

1
Consider further appellate review
If counsel believes there are arguable grounds, they may consider seeking discretionary review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals within the applicable deadline.
2
Consult defense counsel about post-conviction options
Discuss potential motions for sentence modification, habeas corpus, or other collateral relief if appropriate to the case facts.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The court affirmed Goldthrite’s conviction and held that the trial court did not err in denying his motion for a new trial.
Why did Goldthrite ask for a new trial?: He argued the State failed to comply with statutory procedures in Articles 38.371 and 39.14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which deal with evidence and disclosures.
Who is affected by this decision?: Goldthrite is affected because his conviction stands; the State’s conviction in this case is preserved by the appellate ruling.
Can this decision be appealed further?: The decision could potentially be appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, subject to procedural rules and preservation of issues.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

In the
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-25-00134-CR

JUSTIN CLAYTON GOLDTHRITE, Appellant

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 124th District Court
Gregg County, Texas
Trial Court No. 53,859-B

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Justin Clayton Goldthrite was indicted for and pled guilty to the offense of retaliation.1

See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 36.06(c) (Supp.). Goldthrite appeals his conviction, arguing that

the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial because the State failed to comply with

Articles 39.14 and 38.371 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. ANN. arts. 38.371, 39.14 (Supp.).

Via a single consolidated brief, Goldthrite challenges the denial of his motion for new

trial. We address Goldthrite’s argument in detail in our opinion addressing his appeal in

appellate cause number 06-25-00133-CR, and we apply the same legal standard and analysis

here as we did in the companion case.

We determine that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for new trial.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Scott E. Stevens
Chief Justice

Date Submitted: April 7, 2026
Date Decided: April 20, 2026

Do Not Publish

1
In companion appellate cause number 06-25-00133-CR, Goldthrite challenges his conviction for aggravated assault
with a deadly weapon. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2). In companion appellate cause number 06-25-
00135-CR, Goldthrite challenges his conviction for a second count of the offense of retaliation. See TEX. PENAL
CODE ANN. § 36.06(c).
2