Riley, J.
The State maintains that separate charges were appropriate because the police officers seized 10.62 grams of “Kryp2Nite Original” packages (all of which contained JWH-122) from a cardboard box inside Elvie’s bathroom closet, and 3.89 grams of products with brand names such as “Spike Max” and “K4 Silver” (also containing JWH-122) from Elvie’s gun safe. The State insists that because the legislature intended to punish dealers more severely, Elvers should be charged based on his “decisions to invest in, and market, multiple types of products containing JWH-122.” (State’s Br. p. 19). On the other hand, according to Elvers, the separate charges suggest that he was charged for possessing specific brand names of spice rather than for the underlying synthetic drug. We agree with Elvers.
The Synthetic Drug Law proscribes the possession, with intent to deliver, of JWH-122 in any pure or adulterated form—without consideration of the product’s brand name or any other ingredients. Furthermore, the Synthetic Drug Law has a built-in penalty for possessing at least two grams of a synthetic drug. I.C. § 35-48-4-10(b)(1)(B)(ii) (2012). Once this two-gram threshold is met, the statute provides for a Class D felony regardless of any quantity in excess thereof. Our court has previously determined that “[t]he essence of the crime of possession of [a controlled substance] is the act of possessing [the controlled substance] on a particular occasion, without respect to the location, quantity, or the number of individual packages . . . possessed.” Stephens v. State, 588 N.E.2d 564, 657 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (footnote omitted), trans. denied. In the case at hand, Elvers was effectively convicted of two violations arising “from his single act of simultaneous possession” of multiple products containing JWH-122. Young v. State, 564 N.E.2d 968, 972 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991), trans. denied. Accordingly, the State should have charged Elvers with only a single Count of dealing in the synthetic drug JWH-122. Even though the error did not result in additional harm to Elvers based on the trial court’s imposition of identical, concurrent sentences, we remand to the trial court with instructions to vacate the conviction as to Count V. [Footnote omitted.]
MATHIAS, J. and CRONE, J. concur