<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">6</A>-00<A NAME="2">065</A>-CR</CENTER>
</STRONG>

<P><STRONG><HR ALIGN="CENTER" WIDTH="26%">
</STRONG></P>



<CENTER><A NAME="3">Harry Sell, Jr.</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">TRAVIS</A> COUNTY, <A NAME="5">147TH</A> JUDICIAL DISTRICT</CENTER>
</STRONG></SPAN>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><STRONG><CENTER>NO. <A NAME="6">0952030</A>, HONORABLE <A NAME="7">JACK HAMPTON</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">	A jury found appellant guilty of indecency with a child and aggravated sexual assault of a
child.  Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 21.11, 22.021 (West 1994 &amp; Supp. 1997).<STRONG><A HREF="#N_1_"><SUP> (1)</SUP></A></STRONG>  The jury assessed
punishment for these offenses at imprisonment for twenty years and ninety-nine years with a $10,000 fine,
respectively.</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times Regular">		Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and
without merit.  The brief meets the requirements of <EM>Anders v. California</EM>, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by
presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be
advanced.  <EM>See also</EM> <EM>Penson v. Ohio</EM>, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); <EM>High v. State</EM>, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1978); <EM>Currie v. State</EM>, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); <EM>Jackson v. State</EM>, 485 S.W.2d
553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); <EM>Gainous v. State</EM>, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times Regular">		Appellant filed a pro se brief contending in a single point of error that the ninety-nine-year
sentence is disproportionate and thus violates the Eighth Amendment.  U.S. Const. amend. VIII.  Whether
the Eighth Amendment contains a proportionality guarantee and, if it does, how that guarantee is to be
enforced, is not clear.  <EM>Compare Solem v. Helm</EM>, 463 U.S. 277 (1983) <EM>with Harmelin v. Michigan</EM>, 501
U.S. 957 (1991); <EM>and see McGruder v. Puckett</EM>, 954 F.2d 313, 316 (5<SUP>th</SUP> Cir. 1992).</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times Regular">		The punishment assessed by the jury is within that authorized by the legislature for the
offense of aggravated sexual assault.  In light of the complainant's testimony describing a long-term pattern
of sexual assaults, we cannot say that the punishment is disproportionate to the offense.  The pro se point
of error is overruled.</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times Regular">		The judgment of conviction is affirmed.</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">Affirmed</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times Regular">Filed:   March 27, 1997</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times Regular">Do Not Publish
<P><A NAME="N_1_">1. </A>       The 1995 amendment of section 22.021 is not relevant to this appeal.</SPAN></P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
