<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">9</A>-00<A NAME="2">139</A>-CR</CENTER>


<P><STRONG><CENTER>NO. 03-99-00140-CR</CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<P><STRONG><CENTER>NO. 03-99-00141-CR</CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<P><STRONG><HR ALIGN="CENTER" WIDTH="26%">
</STRONG></P>



<CENTER><A NAME="3">Henry Robinson</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">TRAVIS</A> COUNTY, <A NAME="5">147TH</A> JUDICIAL DISTRICT</CENTER>
</STRONG></SPAN>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><STRONG><CENTER>NOS. <A NAME="6">0931214, 0931264 &amp; 0931265</A> </CENTER>
</STRONG></SPAN></P>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><STRONG><CENTER>HONORABLE <A NAME="7">WILFORD FLOWERS</A>, JUDGE PRESIDING</STRONG></SPAN><STRONG></CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<P><STRONG><HR SIZE="3">
</STRONG></P>



Henry Robinson appeals from orders revoking community supervision.  The
underlying convictions are for sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child.  In each cause,
the district court imposed sentence of imprisonment for ten years.

<P>Robinson's court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeals are
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 Robinson, and Robinson was advised of his right to examine
the appellate records and to file a pro se brief.  No pro se brief has been filed.</P>

<P>We have reviewed the records and counsel's brief and agree that the appeals are
frivolous and without merit.  A discussion of the contention advanced in counsel's brief would
serve no beneficial purpose.</P>

<P>The orders revoking community supervision are affirmed.</P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P>	<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: underline">                                                                       
</SPAN></P>

<P>	Bea Ann Smith, Justice</P>

<P>Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices B. A. Smith and Yeakel</P>

<P>Affirmed</P>

<P>Filed:   November 4, 1999</P>

<P>Do Not Publish</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
