<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. 03-9<A NAME="1">8</A>-00<A NAME="2">158</A>-CR</CENTER>


<P><STRONG><HR ALIGN="CENTER" WIDTH="26%">
</STRONG></P>



<CENTER><A NAME="3">Brady Thompson Sanders</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">TOM GREEN</A> COUNTY, <A NAME="5">119TH</A> JUDICIAL DISTRICT</CENTER>
</STRONG></SPAN>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><STRONG><CENTER>NO. <A NAME="6">B-94-0753-S</A>, HONORABLE <A NAME="7">JOHN E. SUTTON</A>, JUDGE PRESIDING</STRONG></SPAN><STRONG></CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<P><STRONG><HR SIZE="3">
</STRONG></P>


PER CURIAM

<P>Appellant Brady Thompson Sanders pleaded guilty to an indictment accusing him
of aggravated sexual assault of a child.  <EM>See</EM> Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.021(a)(1)(B)(i) (West
Supp. 1999).  After accepting appellant's guilty plea, the district court deferred further
proceedings 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 thirty-one years.</P>

<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 advancing a contention counsel says might arguably support the appeal.  <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.  Appellant filed a pro se brief.</P>

<P>We have reviewed the record, counsel's brief, and the pro se brief.  We agree that
the appeal is frivolous and without merit.  The contention raised in both briefs, that appellant
received ineffective assistance of counsel, is not factually supported by the record.</P>

<P>The judgment of conviction is affirmed.</P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P>Before Justices Jones, B. A. Smith and Yeakel</P>

<P>Affirmed</P>

<P>Filed:   April 22, 1999</P>

<P>Do Not Publish</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
