direction of the seller.” Thomas, 832 S.W.2d at 50; Roberts v. State, 866 S.W.2d 773, 778 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, pet. ref d). Appellant used no other person or means; he transferred marihuana to Williams himself. Thus, a constructive transfer did not occur. In Queen v. State, however, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stated in dictum that: A constructive transfer may take several forms: the actor may constructively transfer narcotics to the intended recipient by entrusting the narcotics to an associate or the postal service for the delivery to the recipient, or the actor may place the contraband in a particular location and then advise the recipient of the location so that the recipient can retrieve the narcotics. 662 S.W.2d 338, 340 (Tex.Crim.App.1983) (emphasis added) (<HOLDING>). This hypothetical does not suggest a transfer
holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense recognizing that article 2810c provides that indictment or information may not be amended over defendants objection as to form or substance if indictment or information charges defendant with additional or different offense or if substantial rights of defendant are prejudiced holding an indictment legally insufficient when it failed to inform the defendant of the gravamen of the alleged offense holding that the indictment was sufficient to satisfy the continuity requirement since it alleged that the defendants conduct occurred over a period of eight years holding indictment sufficient to notify defendant of form of delivery alleged