In Lopez v. State, 108 S.W.3d 293 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003), a case in which the defendant had been convicted of delivering (by offering to sell) and possessing while intending to deliver the same cocaine, that court held that a defendant could not be convicted of "several 'delivery' convictions where there is only one single sale of one drug." 108 S.W.3d at 300. The court reasoned that the two convictions violated double jeopardy "because the steps in this single drug transaction were all 'the result of the original impulse,' and therefore each step was not a 'new bargain.'" Id. at 301. The court also opined that the State's position--that a defendant could be convicted for each act of negotiating to sell drugs, possessing the drugs with intent to deliver them, and delivering them--did not "comport with common sense." Id. at 297. 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 that defendant charged with violation of section 481.112 of the Health & Safety Code cannot be punished more than once for manufacturing, possessing, and delivering the same single cache of drugs). In that case, Lopez was convicted of both delivery and possession with intent to deliver the same quantity of cocaine during a single transaction. Id. at 295. The Court of Criminal Appeals reasoned that because the single drug transaction arose from one original impulse, the two convictions were for the "same offense" under the Blockburger test, and thus violated double jeopardy. Id. at 299-300. The Court held that the Legislature did not intend that individual steps taken toward a single sale of a single quantity of a controlled substance constitute more than one violation of Tex. Health & Safety Code section 481.112(a). The Court noted that "there are at least five ways to commit an offense under Section 481.112: through knowing (1) manufacture; (2) an offer to sell; or (3) possession with intent to deliver; or through knowing delivery by (4) actual transfer; or (5) constructive transfer." Lopez, 108 S.W.3d at 297. The Court stated that all of these methods are merely "points along a continuum in the line of drug distribution," and that the defendant may only be prosecuted once for the same drug sale. Id. at 297-98. The State cannot obtain two convictions for the same sale of the same quantity of drugs because that violates double jeopardy. Id. at 300-01.