In Stolz v. State, 962 S.W.2d 81 (Tex. App.-Houston 1st Dist. 1997), the defendant placed marijuana on a fence post twenty feet from the buyer while the buyer watched. Two or three minutes later, the buyer retrieved the marijuana. On appeal, the defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to show that an actual transfer occurred because the transfer was in fact a constructive transfer. The Houston Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the transfer was an actual transfer because "no other person or means" was used to transfer the marijuana between the two persons involved. The court then remarked that its holding contradicted "dictum" found in Queen. However, the Houston court found that this "dictum" was "neutralized" by subsequent "dictum" in Daniels v. State, which stated: "A constructive transfer only requires that when the State alleges constructive transfer to an alleged ultimate recipient, that the accused must have contemplated that his initial transfer would not be the final transaction in the chain of distribution." The Houston court found that Daniels required the defendant to contemplate subsequent transfers beyond the initial transfer (i.e. subsequent transferees) for a transaction to qualify as a constructive transfer, and because Queen's second method does not describe the contemplation of subsequent transfers, Queen's second method does not describe a constructive transfer.