Case Name: Clayton Anthony RENT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1990-09-12
Citations: 838 S.W.2d 548
Docket Number: No. 1090-89
Parties: Clayton Anthony RENT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: W.C. DAVIS, J., not participating.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 838
Pages: 548–551

Head Matter:
Clayton Anthony RENT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 1090-89.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.
Sept. 12, 1990.
Rehearing Granted June 19, 1991.
Opinion on Motion for Rehearing March 18, 1992.
Rehearings Denied Sept. 23, 1992 and Sept. 30, 1992.
Thomas F. Clayton, Dallas, for appellant.
John Vance, Dist. Atty., and Pamela Sullivan Berdanier, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
OPINION ON STATE'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted of the offense of promoting obscene material and his punishment was assessed at five days confinement and a fine of $1,500. The conviction was reversed and remanded for new trial. Rent v. State, 771 S.W.2d 723 (Tex.App.— Dallas, 1989). We granted review to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that appellant was entitled to ten days notice after the physical amendment of the information in this case and whether a harmless error analysis should have been conducted. See Article 28.10(a), V.A.C.C.P.
After careful review of the State's petition, the record before us, and the parties' briefs, we have determined that this case is governed by our decision in Sodipo v. State, 815 S.W.2d 551 (Tex.Cr.App., No. 1390-88), this day decided, and therefore the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
W.C. DAVIS, J., not participating.