<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><STRONG><CENTER></CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<P><STRONG><CENTER>NO. 03-96-00412-CR</CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<P><STRONG><CENTER></CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><STRONG><CENTER>Daniel Craig Halley, Appellant</CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<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><CENTER></CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times" STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><STRONG><CENTER>FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 119TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT</CENTER>
</STRONG></SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times" STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><STRONG><CENTER>NO. CR91-0401-B, HONORABLE JOHN E. SUTTON, JUDGE PRESIDING</STRONG></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times"><STRONG></CENTER>
</STRONG></SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times"><STRONG><CENTER></CENTER>
</STRONG></SPAN></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times"><STRONG>PER CURIAM</STRONG></SPAN></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times">	Appellant pleaded guilty and judicially confessed to possessing less than twenty-eight grams of morphine.  Controlled Substances Act, 71st Leg., R.S., ch. 678, sec. 1,
§&nbsp;481.115, 1989 Tex. Gen. Laws 2230, 2936 (Tex. Health &amp; Safety Code Ann. § 481.115, since
amended).  The district court found that the evidence substantiated appellant's guilt but, pursuant
to a plea bargain agreement, deferred further proceedings without adjudicating guilt and placed
appellant on community supervision.  The court subsequently revoked supervision on the State's
motion, adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at imprisonment for seventeen
years.</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times">	Appellant's only point of error is that the punishment is unconstitutionally
disproportionate to the offense.  Appellant's notice of appeal, however, does not does not state
that the district court gave appellant permission to appeal.  As a result, we have jurisdiction in this
cause only to consider jurisdictional issues.  <EM>Watson v. State</EM>, 924 S.W.2d 711, 714-15 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1996); Tex. R. App. P. 40(b)(1).  Appellant's point of error does not question the
jurisdiction of the district court over either the subject matter of this cause or appellant personally. 
<EM>Fairfield v. State</EM>, 610 S.W.2d 771, 779 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981).  Under the circumstances, we
do not have jurisdiction of this appeal.</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times">	The appeal is dismissed.</SPAN></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times">Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Kidd and B. A. Smith</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times">Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times">Filed:   October 23, 1996</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times">Do Not Publish</SPAN></P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
