835 (Meyers, J., concurring, joined by Mansfield and Johnson, JJ.) (stating that the Blockburger test is employed when multiple offenses for the same act in the same transaction are at issue, not when multiple acts constitute multiple offenses in the same transaction). In those analyses, we can also consider other factors to determine, despite the outcome of the Blockburger and cognate-pleadings test, if the Legislature intended to authorize multiple punishments. Compare Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 369-69, 103 S.Ct. 673, 74 L.Ed.2d 535 (1983) (authorizing multiple punishments, if it is the intent of the Legislature, despite the Blockburger test indicating the offenses are the same for double-jeopardy purposes), with Ex parte Ervin v. State, 991 S.W.2d 804, 807 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (<HOLDING>). 3 . In the relevant indictment, Appellant was
holding that when the legislature intends to punish separate acts even ones in close temporal proximity the blockburger test does not apply because the precondition for employing that test that the two offenses involve the same conduct is absent holding that possession with intent to distribute and simple possession are the same offense under blockburger holding that determining legislative intent is a question of law holding that because the ultimate question is legislative intent the blockburger test cannot authorize two punishments where the ljegislature clearly intended only one holding that congress intended to allow multiple punishments for rico conspiracies and conspiracies to commit the underlying predicate offense even though the offenses were the same under the blockburger test