the whole or another part of that crime. Double jeopardy forbids the state from a piecemeal prosecution of an offense.” Polson, 145 S.W.3d at 896 (quoting State ex rel. Westfall v. Campbell, 637 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Mo.App. E.D.1982) (internal citations omitted)). What the State is doing in the case at bar is trying to prosecute a single crime into separate parts. The State is arguing for the first time that Appellant committed separate crimes by possessing separate baggies of cocaine. The double jeopardy clause forbids such a prosecution, absent a legislative intent to do so. There is nothing to suggest that the legislature intended for multiple punishments for a single act of possessing the same controlled substance, namely cocaine. Cf. State v. Harris, 153 S.W.3d 4, 8 (Mo.App. W.D.2005) (<HOLDING>). Convicting Appellant of both possession of
holding  1227a2bi limits the meaning of controlled substance for removal purposes to the substances controlled under  802 holding that defendants ability to pay may be considered in assessing penalty under controlled substances act recognizing that the legislature would not generally use a different meaning for the same word in a legislative provision unless a different purpose was intended holding that under section 172550 two prior violations of the controlled substances act occurring in the same incident should be treated as one offense and noting that if multiple prior convictions are obtained for violations of the controlled substance act unrelated to one another and not arising out of a single incident there is no prohibition against counting each conviction separately for sentencing purposes holding that the legislature intended for multiple punishments when a defendant makes a single act of possessing different types of controlled substances