or manufacture of a controlled sub stance and the trafficking of that controlled substance in the same quantity and under the same conduct violate double jeopardy. See Latos v. State, 39 So.3d 511, 513-14 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Fonseca v. State, 114 So.3d 1010 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012); Odom v. State, 104 So.3d 1238, 1239 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). In the present case, as in Latos, the trafficking conduct was the same conduct constituting the lesser offense, rendering the defendant’s conviction under both counts violative of double jeopardy. The State does not argue that the cultivation count is for cannabis distinct from the cannabis involved in the trafficking count, but even if it did, such an argument has been rejected by this court. See Sims v. State, 793 So.2d 1153, 1154 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we reverse the defendant’s
holding that convictions for trafficking possession and simple possession ofcocaine offended double jeopardy protections holding that trial court may arrest judgment on conviction for possession with intent to deliver and enter judgment of guilt on simple possession recognizing possession of cocaine as a lesserincluded offense of possession of cocaine with intent to sell holding that convictions for possession with intent to sell cannabis and simple possession of cannabis could not be grounded on cannabis being found in different places in the house holding that possession with intent to distribute and simple possession are the same offense under blockburger