Calvin Harold Dahlman was found guilty by a jury of manufacturing methamphetamine in violation of OCGA § 16-13-30 b and possession of substances with the intent to use them to manufacture methamphetamine in violation of OCGA § 16-13-30.5 a. He claims on appeal that the evidence was insufficient and that the trial court erred by refusing to merge the conviction for possession with intent to manufacture into the conviction for manufacturing. We find that the evidence was sufficient; that the convictions did not merge; and affirm. 1. Pursuant to a warrant, police searched the residence where Dahlman lived and found a clandestine laboratory for the manufacture of methamphetamine a meth lab. After being advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U. S. 436 86 SC 1602, 16 LE2d 694 1966, Dahlman told police that all the evidence recovered from the rear bedroom of the residence belonged to him. Police officers experienced in identifying the components of a meth lab found various items and substances commonly used to manufacture methamphetamine in the rear bedroom and the adjacent bathroom. Dahlman testified and admitted that he used methamphetamine, but he denied that the rear bedroom or the bathroom was being used as a meth lab. Although Dahlman admitted that he owned the various items and substances identified as meth lab components, he claimed that he used them only for work he did around the residence. Evidence showed that some of the substances had been combined in containers, and a forensic chemist from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation Crime Lab testified that a liquid substance found in the residence tested positive for methamphetamine. The evidence was sufficient for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Dahlman was guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine in a meth lab at the residence, and was guilty of possessing substances with the intent to use them to manufacture methamphetamine. Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U. S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979.
2. Dahlman contends that manufacturing methamphetamine in violation of OCGA § 16-13-30 b necessarily included possession of the substances used in the manufacturing process in violation of OCGA § 16-13-30.5 a 1, therefore both offenses arose from the same conduct and merged under the Fifth Amendment double jeopardy clause.
