<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>ON MOTION FOR REHEARING</CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<P><STRONG><CENTER></CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><STRONG><CENTER></CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<P><STRONG><CENTER>NO. 03-95-00238-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>Leonard Lanier, 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 TRAVIS COUNTY, 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT</CENTER>
</STRONG></SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times" STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><STRONG><CENTER>NO. 0944611, HONORABLE CHARLES CAMPBELL, 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">	In his motion for rehearing, appellant complains that we did not address his fifth
point of error, by which he urged that the district court did not give the statutory instruction on
the law of good time and parole mandated by article 37.07, section 4(a).  Tex. Code Crim. Proc.
Ann. art. 37.07, § 4(a) (West Supp. 1996).  We combined our discussion of this point with our
discussion of point of error six, by which appellant urged that the failure to give the statutory
instruction constituted fundamental error.  We combined the two points because, in effect, they
presented the same contention, a point we thought was made by our citation of <EM>Abdnor v. State</EM>,
871 S.W.2d 726, 731-32 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994), and <EM>Almanza v. State</EM>, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171
(Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (opinion on rehearing).</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times">	So that there is no misunderstanding, we quote the cited passage from <EM>Abdnor</EM> on
which our determination of points of error five and six was based:</SPAN></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times">	An erroneous or incomplete jury charge . . . does not result in
automatic reversal of a conviction.  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 36.19
prescribes the manner of appellate review for jury charge error.  [Citing <EM>Almanza</EM>.] 
When reviewing charge errors, an appellate court must undertake a two-step
review: first, the court must determine whether error actually exists in the charge,
and second, the court must determine whether sufficient harm resulted from the
error to require reversal.  [Citing <EM>Almanza</EM>.]  The standard to determine whether
sufficient harm resulted from the charging error to require reversal depends upon
whether appellant objected. . . .  [W]here the error is urged for the first time on
appeal, a reviewing court will search for "egregious harm."  [Citing <EM>Almanza</EM>.]</SPAN></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times">871 S.W.2d at 731-32 (footnote and citations omitted).  Because appellant did not object to the
district court's failure to give the mandatory parole instruction (point five), the error called for
reversal only if it was egregiously harmful (point six).  Because we concluded that the omission
of the instruction did not result in egregious harm, we overruled both points of error.</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times">	We find the other contentions made in the motion for rehearing to be without merit. 
The motion for rehearing is overruled.</SPAN></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times">Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Aboussie and Kidd</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times">Motion for Rehearing Overruled</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times">Filed:  July 31, 1996</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times">Do Not Publish</SPAN></P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
