jeopardy purposes, offenses are deemed to be the same “where only one offense requires proof of an additional fact, so that all elements of one offense are present in the other.” Thomas, 277 Md. at 267, 353 A.2d at 247. See also Snowden v. State, 321 Md. 612, 617, 583 A.2d 1056, 1059 (1991). In the instant case, every element of possession is also an element of possession with intent to distribute. Possession with intent to distribute includes the additional element of intent. Thus, because only possession with intent to distribute requires proof of an additional element and all elements of possession are present in possession with intent to distribute, the two are deemed the same offense for double jeopardy purposes. See Mauk v. State, 91 Md.App. 456, 461, 605 A.2d 157, 159 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Having found that possession -with intent to
holding that simple possession of cocaine is not lesser included offense of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute holding that a prior conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine is admissible under rule 609 holding that the defendants prior drug conviction for simple possession did not constitute a controlled substance offense because the plain language of  4b12b requires that the prior conviction involve possession with intent to distribute holding that trial court may arrest judgment on conviction for possession with intent to deliver and enter judgment of guilt on simple possession holding that possession with intent to distribute and simple possession are the same offense under blockburger