Appellant Bobby Joe Lessing pleaded guilty and judicially confessed to burglary of a habitation. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02(a), (c)(2) (West 1994). A jury assessed punishment at imprisonment for five years and a $3000 fine.

Appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by advancing a contention that counsel says might arguably support the appeal. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 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.

Counsel's arguable point of error complains of the district court's failure to include the statutory instruction on the law of good time and parole in the punishment charge. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 37.07, § 4 (West Supp. 1998). The failure to give this mandatory instruction is charge error subject to Almanza analysis. Cormier v. State, 955 S.W.2d 161, 164 (Tex. App.--Austin 1997, no pet.); see Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (op. on reh'g). Because appellant did not object to the error at trial, he must demonstrate that the omission resulted in egregious harm. Cormier, 955 S.W.2d at 164. After reviewing the record, we agree with counsel that no such harm is shown. There is no evidence that the omission of the good time and parole instruction had any direct or indirect influence on the punishment assessed. We also agree with counsel's conclusion that the appeal is frivolous.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Before Chief Justice Yeakel, Justices Jones and B. A. Smith

Affirmed

Filed: November 13, 1998

Do Not Publish