ARTURO RAMIREZ, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Affirmed and Opinion filed October 11, 1989
 
 
S
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-89-00218-CR
............................
ARTURO RAMIREZ, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
 
.................................................................
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Number 5
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F88-82110-L
.................................................................
O P I N I O N
Before Chief Justice Enoch and Justices Baker and Onion FN:1
Opinion By Chief Justice Enoch
        Arturo Ramirez, appellant, was convicted, after entering a plea of guilty, of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Punishment was assessed at 50 years confinement. Appellant claims that the trial court committed error in accepting the plea of guilty because the name of the complaining witness was not set out in the indictment. We overrule his point or error and affirm the trial court's judgment.
        The indictment alleged that appellant did unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally possess with intent to deliver a controlled substance, namely: "cocaine, in the amount by aggregate weight including any adulterants or dilutants of 400 grams or more." Appellant pleaded guilty to the offense charged. Appellant testified that he understood what he was being charged with in the indictment and that he and his counsel had discussed all of the options available to him. Appellant executed a jury waiver and judicial confession which were filed with the court. The court then found appellant guilty of the offense as charged in the indictment.
        Because appellant entered a plea of guilty to the charged offense, he has waived all claims of nonjurisdictional error. Appellant's point of error does not raise a jurisdictional defect and is, therefore, waived. Kings v. State, 687 S.W.2d 762, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985); Helms v. State, 484 S.W.2d 925, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972).
        Even if appellant's point of error is not waived, it must still be overruled. For the first time, and only in this appeal, appellant has claimed that the trial court erred in accepting his plea of guilty because the indictment did not provide adequate notice of what the State intended to prove. More specifically, he claims that since the State at trial used evidence of delivery to prove up the portion of the indictment alleging intent to deliver, the State should be required to identify the "complaining witness."
        Appellant is charged in the indictment with possession with intent to deliver not with a completed delivery. Assuming without deciding that the complaining witness is an element of a delivery offense, it is well settled that the indictment need not set forth "the elements of an attempted offense (here intent to deliver) . . . ." Gonzales v. State, 638 S.W.2d 41, 44 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st District] 1982, pet. ref'd); see also Jones v. State, 576 S.W.2d 393, 395 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979); Williams v. State, 544 S.W.2d 428, 429 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976). The fact that the evidence established a completed delivery in the case at bar does not render defective the indictment which alleged possession with intent to deliver. We overrule appellant's sole point of error and affirm the trial court's judgment.
 
 
                                                          
                                                          CRAIG TRIVELY ENOCH
                                                          CHIEF JUSTICE
 
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 90
 
890218.U05
 
FN:1 The Honorable John F. Onion, Jr., Presiding Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals, sitting by assignment.
File Date[10-10-89]
File Name[890218]