State v

Burgess, 263 Ga. 143, 429 S.E.2d 252, 1993 Ga. LEXIS 394 (1993). Conduct of selling is subsumed in the expressly prohibited activity of distributing and therefore constitutes a violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-13-30.2. Dorsey v. State, 212 Ga. App. 479, 441 S.E.2d 891, 1994 Ga. App. LEXIS 275 (1994). Undercover deputies’ possession of wax pieces of fake cocaine to identify and arrest drug buyers did not violate prohibition against possessing imitation controlled substance with intent to distribute. Guzman v. State, 206 Ga. App. 170, 424 S.E.2d 849, 1992 Ga. App. LEXIS 1565 (1992). Evidence insufficient for conviction. — When a federal chemist testified that, although the chemist thought the green leafy material was marijuana, the chemist did not test the substance, so the chemist could not testify beyond a reasonable doubt that the substance was marijuana, and since no scientifically conclusive evidence was presented at all, a conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute could not stand. Adkinson v. State, 236 Ga. App. 270, 511 S.E.2d 527, 1999 Ga. App. LEXIS 138 (1999). Rule of lenity did not apply. — Rule of lenity did not apply to a defendant’s conviction of felony possession with intent to distribute a noncontrolled substance, O.C.G.A. § 16-13-30.1, because the evidence did not show that the substance at issue was an “imitation controlled substance” for purposes of misdemeanor unlawful manufacture, distribution, or possession with intent to distribute an imitation of controlled substances, O.C.G.A. § 16-13-30.2; although the noncontrolled substance at issue was in common packaging for narcotics, the evidence did not show that the substance appeared as a “dosage unit” based on color, shape, size, or markings or was specifically designed or manufactured to resemble a controlled substance. Therefore, the evidence failed to establish that the defendant’s conduct fell within § 16-13-30.2(a). Diaz v. State, 296 Ga. App. 589, 676 S.E.2d 252, 2009 Ga. App. LEXIS 279 (2009). Rule of lenity did not apply to conviction for imitation controlled substances. — Trial court did not err by refusing to apply the rule of lenity with regard to a defendant’s conviction for selling a counterfeit substance because the evidence revealed that the substance would not fall under either definition of “imitation controlled substance” set forth in O.C.G.A. § 16-13-21(12.1)(A) as the parties stipulated only that the substance recovered was not a controlled substance and there was no evidence presented that the substance was specifically designed or manufactured to resemble the physical appearance of a controlled substance. As a result, the rule of lenity did not apply, and the trial court properly sentenced the defendant for a felony. Chandler v. State, 294 Ga. App. 27, 668 S.E.2d 510, 2008 Ga. App. LEXIS 1099 (2008). 398 16-13-30.2 CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES 16-13-30.3