IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-00-035-CV

IN THE MATTER OF A.A.B., A JUVENILE

From the County Court at Law No. 2

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court # J02790

CONCURRING OPINION

      I am not ready to abandon our decision in In re M.E.R. to apply Almanza to the charge in juvenile cases. Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 172 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (op. on reh'g); In re M.E.R., 995 S.W.2d 287, 291 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, no pet.).

      We specifically asked the parties to brief the question. The State’s brief on re-submission says: “The State responds that the criminal rules should apply based on the analysis of In re C.O.S., [988 S.W.2d 760 (Tex. 1999)], In re A.V., [57 S.W.3d 51 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, no pet.)], In re M.E.R., [995 S.W.2d at 291], In re K.W.G., [953 S.W.2d 483 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1997, pet. denied)], In re E.F., [986 S.W.2d 806 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, pet. denied)], In re C.P., [998 S.W.2d 703 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, no pet.)], and R.X.F. v. State, [921 S.W.2d 888 (Tex. App.—Waco 1996, no writ)].” I believe the State’s analysis of the issue is correct.

      Having stated my disagreement with the majority’s position about that, I concur in the judgment because, considering the charge in its entirety, I do not believe that A.A.B. has demonstrated that he was “egregiously harmed.” See Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171.

                                                                   BILL VANCE

                                                                   Justice

Concurring opinion delivered and filed June 11, 2003