possessing with intent to deliver, and manufacturing the same quantity of methamphetamine during the same transaction. See U.S. Const., amend. V; Tex. Const., art. I § 14; see also Stephens v. State, 806 S.W.2d 812, 815 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (state and federal double jeopardy provisions are conceptually identical). Among other protections, the Double Jeopardy Clause protects against multiple punishments for the same offense. Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410, 415, 100 S.Ct. 2260, 65 L.Ed.2d 228 (1980); Lopez v. State, 108 S.W.3d 293, 295-96 (Tex.Crim.App.2003). In Lopez, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits separate punishments for distinct steps in a single, drug transaction that flows from one “original impulse.” Lopez, 108 S.W.3d at 300-01 (<HOLDING>). In that case, Lopez was convicted of both
holding that state may charge separately for the same offense but the convictions for more than one of the offenses cannot stand holding that probationers substantive violation can be the basis of probation revocation but should not be punished as a contempt holding that more than notice to a defendant is required holding that the double jeopardy clause did not bar charging the defendant with both receipt and possession of child pornography where the defendant was charged with possessing a set of files that did not form the basis for a separate receipt count holding that defendant charged with violation of section 481112 of the health  safety code cannot be punished more than once for manufacturing possessing and delivering the same single cache of drugs