<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><STRONG></CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><STRONG><HR ALIGN="CENTER" WIDTH="26%">
</STRONG></P>
<CENTER>NO. 03-0<A NAME="1">1</A>-00<A NAME="2">106</A>-CR</CENTER>


<P><STRONG><HR ALIGN="CENTER" WIDTH="26%">
</STRONG></P>



<CENTER><A NAME="3">James Paul Hicks</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">BELL</A> COUNTY, <A NAME="5">264TH</A> JUDICIAL DISTRICT</CENTER>
</STRONG></SPAN>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><STRONG><CENTER>NO. <A NAME="6">50,118</A>, HONORABLE <A NAME="7">JOE CARROLL</A>, JUDGE PRESIDING</STRONG></SPAN><STRONG></CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<P><STRONG><HR SIZE="3">
</STRONG></P>



Appellant James Paul Hicks was placed on deferred adjudication community
supervision after he pleaded no contest to aggravated sexual assault of a child.  <EM>See</EM> Tex. Pen. Code
Ann. § 22.021 (West Supp. 2001).  The court later revoked supervision, adjudicated appellant guilty,
and imposed sentence of imprisonment for six years.

<P>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).  A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised
of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief.  </P>

<P>No pro se brief has been filed.  Appellant's father, however, sent the Court a letter
and certain accompanying documents that he asserts raise questions about the regularity of the
proceedings below.  We have examined these documents and find no basis for disturbing the district
court's judgment.</P>

<P>The judgment of conviction is affirmed.</P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P>				<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: underline">                                                                                   </SPAN></P>

<P>				Mack Kidd, Justice</P>

<P>Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Puryear</P>

<P>Affirmed</P>

<P>Filed:   June 29, 2001</P>

<P>Do Not Publish</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
