The Court of Criminal Appeals has consistently interpreted the various subsections of § 13A-12-231 as requiring the State to prove the knowing possession of the controlled substance, but not knowledge of the actual quantity possessed. See Harris v. State, 826 So.2d 897, 898 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000) ("In order to present a prima facie case of trafficking in cocaine, the State must prove that the defendant was knowingly in actual or constructive possession of 28 grams or more of cocaine. Korreckt v. State, 507 So. 2d 558 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986).
side of the fine regardless of whether the issue of the fine had been raised by the State or by the defendant at the trial level: Sistrunk v. State , 109 So.3d 205 (Ala.Crim.App.2012) ; Hinkle v. State , 86 So.3d 441 (Ala.Crim.App.2011) ; Mathews v. State , 74 So.3d 478 (Ala.Crim.App.2011) ; Holloway v. State , 995 So.2d 180 (Ala.Crim.App.2008) ; Hollaway v. State , 979 So.2d 839 (Ala.Crim.App.2007) overruled on other grounds, Wells v. State , 93 So.3d 155 (Ala.Crim.App.2011) ; S.T.E. v. State , 954 So.2d 604 (Ala.Crim.App.2006) ; O'Callaghan v. State , 945 So.2d 467 (Ala.Crim.App.2006) ; Tinker v. State , 932 So.2d 168 (Ala.Crim.App.2005) ; Freeman v. State , 839 So.2d 681 (Ala.Crim.App.2002) ; Phelps v. State , 878 So.2d 1202 (Ala.Crim.App.2002) ; Kirkland v. State , 850 So.2d 1259 (Ala.Crim.App.2002) ; Poole v. State , 846 So.2d 370 (Ala.Crim.App.2001), overruled on other grounds, Ex parte Lightfoot , 152 So.3d 445 (Ala.2013) ; Spooney v. State , 844 So.2d 615 (Ala.Crim.App.2001) ; Harris v. State , 826 So.2d 897 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) ; Williams v. State , 794 So.2d 441 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) ; Ricketson v. State , 766 So.2d 981 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) ; Wooden v. State , 822 So.2d 455 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) ; Myrick v. State , 787 So.2d 713 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) ; Lewis v. State , 794 So.2d 1241 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) ; Bonner v. State , 835 So.2d 234 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) ; Stanberry v. State , 813 So.2d 932 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) ; Laster v. State , 747 So.2d 359 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) ; Davis v. State , 760 So.2d 64 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) ; Douglas v. State , 740 So.2d 485 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) ; Perry v. State , 741 So.2d 467 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) ; Forte v. State , 747 So.2d 925 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) ; Robinson v. State , 747 So.2d 348 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) ; Nix v. State , 747 So.2d 351 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) ; Glanton v. State , 748 So.2d 224 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) ; Arrington v. State , 757 So.2d 484 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) ; Wild v. State , 761 So.2d 261 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) ; McCart v. State , 765 So.2d 21 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) ; Pace v. State , 766
The trial court is directed to note for the record that Ballard's driving privileges should be suspended by the Director of the Department of Public Safety as provided in § 32-5A-191(h), Ala. Code 1975. See Harris v. State, [Ms. CR-99-1439, August 25, 2000] 826 So.2d 897 (Ala.Crim.App. 2000). A return to remand shall be filed with this Court within 21 days of the date of this opinion.