<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><HR ALIGN="CENTER" WIDTH="26%">
</P>
<STRONG><CENTER>NO. 03-9<A NAME="1">6</A>-00<A NAME="2">171</A>-CR</CENTER>
</STRONG>

<P><STRONG><HR ALIGN="CENTER" WIDTH="26%">
</STRONG></P>



<CENTER><A NAME="3">Joe A. Garcia</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">BASTROP</A> COUNTY, <A NAME="5">21ST</A> JUDICIAL DISTRICT</CENTER>
</STRONG></SPAN>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><STRONG><CENTER>NO. <A NAME="6">8389</A>, HONORABLE <A NAME="7">HAROLD R. TOWSLEE</A>, JUDGE PRESIDING</STRONG></SPAN><STRONG></CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<P><STRONG><HR SIZE="3">
</STRONG></P>


PER CURIAM

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P>	<SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times Regular">	The district court found appellant guilty of three counts of indecency with a child and
assessed punishment for each at imprisonment for fifteen years.  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 two contentions which 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).  We have reviewed these arguable points and agree with counsel that neither was preserved for
review.</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times Regular">		Appellant has filed a pro se brief in which he complains of insufficient evidence, a Fifth
Amendment violation, and ineffective assistance of counsel.  We find the complainant's testimony sufficient
to sustain the conviction.  There is no indication in the record that any prejudicial evidence was obtained
in violation of the Fifth Amendment.  And the only alleged error by trial counsel, his statement to the court
that appellant "did something illegal," came at the punishment hearing after the court had found appellant
guilty.  In context, counsel was urging the court to consider the mitigating evidence in determining
punishment.  No error is presented in the pro se brief.</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times Regular">		The judgment of conviction is affirmed.</SPAN></P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times Regular">Before Justices Powers, Jones and Kidd</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times Regular">Affirmed</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times Regular">Filed:   March 20, 1997</SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-family: CG Times Regular">Do Not Publish</SPAN></P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
