<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">192</A>-CR</CENTER>


<P><STRONG><HR ALIGN="CENTER" WIDTH="26%">
</STRONG></P>


<CENTER><A NAME="3">Jose Ruiz</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">
<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">331ST</A> JUDICIAL DISTRICT</CENTER>
</STRONG></SPAN>

<P><SPAN STYLE="font-size: 11pt"><STRONG><CENTER>NO. <A NAME="6">0982517</A>, HONORABLE <A NAME="7">BOB PERKINS</A>, JUDGE PRESIDING</STRONG></SPAN><STRONG></CENTER>
</STRONG></P>

<P><STRONG><HR SIZE="3">
</STRONG></P>



Appellant Jose Ruiz pleaded guilty before a jury to intoxication manslaughter and 
failing to stop and render aid.  <EM>See</EM> Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.08 (West 1994); Tex. Transp.
Code Ann. § 550.023 (West 1999).  After hearing evidence, the jury assessed punishment for the
former offense at imprisonment for twelve years, and at imprisonment for five years for the latter. 
The district court rendered a separate judgment of conviction for each offense.

<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.  No pro se brief has been filed.</P>

<P>We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is
frivolous and without merit.  A discussion of the contention advanced in counsel's brief would
serve no beneficial purpose.</P>

<P>The judgments of conviction are affirmed.</P>

<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<BR WP="BR1"><BR WP="BR2">
<P>				<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration: underline">                                                                      </SPAN></P>

<P>				Jan P. Patterson, Justice</P>

<P>Before Justices Jones, Kidd and Patterson</P>

<P>Affirmed</P>

<P>Filed:   November 4, 1999</P>

<P>Do Not Publish</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
