<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="WordPerfect 9">
<TITLE></TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY TEXT="#000000" LINK="#0000ff" VLINK="#551a8b" ALINK="#ff0000" BGCOLOR="#c0c0c0">

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 14pt"><STRONG><CENTER>TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN</STRONG></SPAN></CENTER>
</P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><HR ALIGN="CENTER" WIDTH="26%">
</P>
<STRONG><CENTER>NO. 03-9<A NAME="1">5</A>-00<A NAME="2">658</A>-CR</CENTER>
</STRONG>

<P><STRONG><HR ALIGN="CENTER" WIDTH="26%">
</STRONG></P>



<CENTER><A NAME="3">Steve Chavez</A>, Appellant</CENTER>


<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><STRONG><CENTER>v.</CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><STRONG><CENTER>The State of Texas, Appellee</CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><STRONG><HR SIZE="3">
</STRONG></P>
<SPAN STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><STRONG><CENTER>FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF <A NAME="4">RUNNELS</A> COUNTY, <A NAME="5">119TH</A> JUDICIAL DISTRICT</CENTER>
</STRONG></SPAN>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><STRONG><CENTER>NO. <A NAME="6">4162</A>, HONORABLE <A NAME="7">JOHN E. SUTTON</A>, JUDGE PRESIDING</STRONG></SPAN><STRONG></CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<P><STRONG><HR SIZE="3">
</STRONG></P>


PER CURIAM

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times Regular">Appellant pleaded guilty to an indictment accusing him of unauthorized use of a vehicle. 
He also pleaded true to enhancement paragraphs alleging two previous felony convictions.  The district
court found that the evidence substantiated appellant's guilt and, pursuant to a plea bargain, deferred further
proceedings and placed appellant on community supervision.  Later, the court revoked supervision on the
State's motion, adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed punishment, enhanced by the previous
convictions, at imprisonment for fifty-three years.  Appellant filed a general notice of appeal.</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times">Appellant's brief contains two points of error by which he contends the district court failed
to consider the entire punishment range in assessing punishment and that the evidence is factually insufficient
to support the punishment assessed.  These points neither raise a jurisdictional issue nor challenge the
voluntariness of the guilty plea.  We are without jurisdiction to consider either point of error.  <EM>Watson v.
State</EM>, 924 S.W.2d 711, 714-15 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); <EM>Lyon v. State</EM>, 872 S.W.2d 732, 736 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1994); <EM>Davis v. State</EM>, 870 S.W.2d 43, 46 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994); <EM>Hutchins v. State</EM>, 887
S.W.2d 207, 209 (Tex. App.--Austin 1994, pet. ref'd); Tex. R. App. P. 40(b)(1).</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times">The appeal is dismissed.</SPAN></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times Regular">Before Justices Powers, Jones and Kidd</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times Regular">Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times Regular">Filed:    April 24, 1997</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times Regular">Do Not Publish</SPAN></P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
