Tommie Loyd Prater appeals from his conviction by a jury for sexual assault of a child with A.C.P. The jury assessed his punishment at twenty years' imprisonment and a $10,000.00 fine. Prater presently has seven other convictions currently on appeal before this Court. ⁽¹⁾

On appeal, Prater contends that the trial court erred in allowing the introduction of hearsay statements through the testimony of Judith Hart, a nurse who examined A.C.P. during her initial hospital visit. Prater argues that her testimony and records were inadmissible because they were hearsay, not made admissible under a medical exception, and that the outcry exception did not apply because Hart was not the outcry witness.

We addressed this issue in detail in our opinion of this date on Prater's appeal in cause number 06-07-00187-CR. For the reasons stated therein, we likewise conclude that error has not been shown.

We affirm the judgment.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: August 8, 2008

Date Decided: September 15, 2008

Do Not Publish

1. Prater appeals from eight convictions. In cause number 06-07-00187-CR, he appeals from his conviction of indecency with a child (A.C.P.) by sexual contact; in cause numbers 06-07-00188-CR through 06-07-00192-CR, he appeals his convictions of sexual assault of a child (A.C.P.). In each of these cases, Prater was sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment, to run consecutively, and $10,000.00 fines.

Prater appeals his conviction in cause number 06-07-00193-CR of indecency with a child (J.A.P.) by sexual contact. Prater was sentenced in this case to twenty years' imprisonment, to run consecutively, and a $10,000.00 fine.

Prater also appeals his conviction in cause number 06-07-00194-CR of aggravated sexual assault of a child (T.L.P.). He was sentenced to life imprisonment, to run consecutively, and a $10,000.00 fine.

cause number 06-07-00186-CR, in which he appeals his adjudication of guilt for the offense of burglary of a habitation.

2. Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel's request to withdraw from further representation of Toups in this case. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Toups wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Toups must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or Toups must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.4.