to or is found guilty of violating the provisions of this subdivision (c)(5) shall be guilty of a Class B felony. (Emphasis added.) Appellant was convicted of Class B felony possession of drug paraphernalia under § 5-64-403 (c)(5). He argues that § 5-64-403 is unconstitutionally vague because it contains two additional punishments for the same conduct: a Class C felony, pursuant to subdivision 5-64-403(c)(l)(B), and a Class A misdemeanor, pursuant to subdivisions 5-64-403(c)(l)(A)(i) and (ii). The State asserts that appellant has no standing to argue that subdivision (c)(l)(A)(i) and (ii) and subdivision (c)(1)(B) are unconstitutionally vague because he was not convicted under those subdivisions. For support, the State cites to Garrigus v. State, 321 Ark. 222, 901 S.W.2d 12 (1995) (<HOLDING>), and to Greer v. State, 310 Ark. 522, 837
holding the defendant lacked standing to raise a doublejeopardy challenge to a statute authorizing additional penalties for underage driving while under the influence where there was no finding that he was punished under that statute holding that the prison physician lacked standing to raise the prisoners rights of access to the courts holding that representation by state officials that they have no present plan to enforce a statute does not divest plaintiffs of standing to challenge the statute because the states position could well change holding that an insurer lacked standing to raise the issue of the intent of the parties to the settlement agreement to which it was not a party holding that statute prohibiting driving while intoxicated applied to defendant driving on a private parking lot