¶1OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
¶2Appellant 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.
¶3After 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. *549State, 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.