David Smiley was convicted of cocaine possession under OCGA 16-13-30 (a) and appeals his sentence of 30 years imposed under OCGA 16-13-30 (c) and the recidivism statute, OCGA 17-10-7. Smiley argues that his previous conviction for cocaine possession with the intent to distribute was not a previous conviction for cocaine possession and, therefore, he should not have been sentenced for a second offense of cocaine possession under OCGA 16-13-30 (c). We disagree and affirm. We have held that a conviction for trafficking in cocaine under OCGA 16-13-31 constitutes a second violation of possession with intent to distribute cocaine under OCGA 16-13-30 (b), triggering the mandatory life sentence required by OCGA 16-13-30 (d). Gilbert v. State, 208 Ga. App. 258, 260 (1) ( 430 SE2d 391) (1993). In that case, we said: To conclude that Gilbert's prior conviction under OCGA 16-13-31 does not trigger the recidivist provisions of OCGA 16-13-30 (d) would lead to an illogical result since Gilbert's first conviction was for a more serious version of the offenses outlined in OCGA 16-13-30 (b). It appears that OCGA 16-13-30 (b) was a lesser included offense of Gilbert's conviction under OCGA 16-13-31. A similarly illogical result would apply here if Smiley's previous conviction for possession with intent to distribute did not equal a conviction of simple possession that triggered the mandatory 30-year sentencing for a second simple possession offense under OCGA 16-13-30 (c). Simple possession is a lesser included offense of possession with the intent to distribute. See Burse v. State, 232 Ga. App. 729, 731 (2) ( 503 SE2d 638) (1998); Howard v. State, 220 Ga. App. 579, 583 (2) ( 469 SE2d 746) (1996). We find no error in Smiley's sentence. Stephen D. Kelley, District Attorney, Ann S. Williams, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee. | 
