<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></STRONG><STRONG><HR ALIGN="CENTER" WIDTH="26%">
</STRONG></P>
<CENTER>NO. 03-9<A NAME="1">7</A>-00<A NAME="2">107</A>-CR</CENTER>


<P><STRONG><CENTER>NO. 03-97-00108-CR</CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<P><STRONG><HR ALIGN="CENTER" WIDTH="26%">
</STRONG></P>



<CENTER><A NAME="3">William Enrique Munoz</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">27TH</A> JUDICIAL DISTRICT</CENTER>
</STRONG></SPAN>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><STRONG><CENTER>NOS. <A NAME="6">42,956 &amp; 46,427</A>, HONORABLE <A NAME="7">MARTHA J. TRUDO</A>, JUDGE PRESIDING</STRONG></SPAN><STRONG></CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<P><STRONG><HR SIZE="3">
</STRONG></P>


PER CURIAM

<P>In number 3-97-107-CR, appellant pleaded guilty to an indictment accusing him of
aggravated sexual assault of a child.  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, adjudged appellant guilty, and
assessed punishment at imprisonment for twenty-five years.  In number 3-97-108-CR, appellant pleaded
guilty to an indictment accusing him of aggravated sexual assault of a child.  The district court adjudged him
guilty and, pursuant to a plea bargain, assessed punishment at imprisonment for forty-five years.</P>

<P>Appellant brings forward the same point of error in both appeals: the district court erred
by failing to give defense counsel reasonable time to review the victim impact statement before sentencing. 
<EM>See</EM> Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 56.03(e) (West Supp. 1997).  In number 3-97-108-CR, the State
has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal pointing out that appellant's notice of appeal does not reflect that
the district court gave him permission to raise this nonjurisdictional matter.  <EM>See 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); <EM>Fowler v. State</EM>, 874 S.W.2d 112,
114 (Tex. App.--Austin 1994, pet. ref'd); Tex. R. App. P. 40(b)(1).  While the State has not moved to
dismiss the appeal in number 3-97-107-CR, the same procedural defect is present in that cause.  <EM>See
Watson v. State</EM>, 924 S.W.2d 711, 714-15 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).  We also note that appellant does
not contend that the alleged error rendered his guilty pleas involuntary.  <EM>See Flowers v. State</EM>, 935 S.W.2d
131, 134 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).  Under the circumstances, this Court is without jurisdiction to consider
these appeals.</P>

<P>The State's motion to dismiss is granted.  The appeals are dismissed for want of jurisdiction.</P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P>Before Justices Powers, Jones and Kidd</P>

<P>Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction</P>

<P>Filed:   June 19, 1997</P>

<P>Do Not Publish</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
