GARNETT FOSTER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Affirmed and Opinion Filed November 15, 1989
 
 
S
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-89-00378-CR
............................
GARNETT FOSTER, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
 
.................................................................
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F88-89409-NPH
.................................................................
OPINION PER CURIAM
Before Justices McClung, Lagarde, and Ovard
        Garnett Foster appeals his conviction for unlawful delivery of a controlled substance. Punishment was assessed at five years confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections.
        Appellant's attorney has filed a brief in which appellant's attorney has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no meritorious grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). A copy of counsel's brief has been delivered to appellant and appellant has been advised that he would be given the opportunity to examine the appellate record and that he had a right to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.
        Appellant's attorney points out that the record reflects that appellant entered a plea of not guilty. Our review of the record shows that this is an error. We agree with appellant's attorney that, reading the record as a whole, it is clear that appellant actually entered a plea of guilty.         
        Appellant's attorney also points out that appellant filed a verified plea in bar of prosecution which the trial court denied. Appellant was charged with five separate offenses of delivery of a controlled substance, each delivery occurring on a separate date. Appellant filed a plea in bar of prosecution with regard to each offense. He argued that the police officer to whom he delivered the controlled substance had an absolute duty to arrest him at the time of the first offense and that this failure to arrest him caused him to commit the subsequent offenses. This Court recently rejected this argument in Hubbard v. State, 770 S.W.2d 31, 40 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1989, pet. ref'd). Further, this appeal is from appellant's conviction for the first of the five offenses. Thus, even if it were meritorious, the argument presented in the plea in bar of prosecution would not preclude appellant's prosecution for the offense at issue in this appeal.
        The judgment is affirmed.
 
                                                          PER CURIAM
 
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 90
 
 
File Date[11-15-89]
File Name[890378F]