☢ test - Í

witnesses, if an adequate foundation is laid with respect to their experience and training, their testimony regarding narcotics is properly admitted.’ (Footnotes and punctuation omitted.) Bilow v. State, 262 Ga.App. 850, 851(1) (586 S.E.2d 675) (2003). See also Lindley v. State, 225 Ga.App. 338, 340-341(1) (484 S.E.2d 33) (1997). Although Sosebee was never tendered as an expert, the state laid the foundation for his expert testimony, and the trial court overruled defense counsel’s objection to the opinions the sergeant gave based on his experience as a narcotics investigator. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Helton intended to distribute the drugs.” Accord, Best v. State , 279 Ga.App. 309, 630 S.E.2d 900 (May 11, 2006); Driscoll v. State , 295 Ga.App. 5, 670 S.E.2d 824 (November 26, 2008) ( quoting Helton ). Myers v. State, 268 Ga.App. 607, 602 S.E.2d 327 (July 20, 2004). “‘Although mere possession of cocaine cannot serve as the basis for a conviction for intent to distribute, the intent can be established with expert testimony that the amount of cocaine found was greater than would normally be had for individual use.’ Glenn v. State , 251 Ga.App. 336, 338-339(2) (553 S.E.2d 323) (2001). Combined with such expert testimony, a large amount of cocaine found on the accused has often sustained convictions for possessing cocaine with intent to distribute. See id. (12 grams of cocaine); Guild v. State, 234 Ga.App. 862, 870(10)(b) (508 S.E.2d 231) (1998) (8 rocks of cocaine); Barker v. State, 226 Ga.App. 747, 748(2) (487 S.E.2d 494) (1997) (34 pieces of cocaine); Bacon v. State, 225 Ga.App. 326, 327 (483 S.E.2d 894) (1997) (9.8 grams of cocaine); Thomas v. State, 222 Ga.App. 337, 338 (474 S.E.2d 631) (1996) (4 or 5 pieces of cocaine). In Bethea v. State, 220 Ga.App. 800, 801-803(1) (470 S.E.2d 328) (1996) cited by Myers, no such expert testimony was presented and therefore the evidence of defendant’s possessing 13 rocks of cocaine was alone insufficient to show intent to distribute. Myers’s possession of 11 rocks of cocaine combined with the officer’s expert testimony that such far exceeded that possessed for personal use sufficed to sustain a conviction for possessing cocaine with intent to distribute.” Alexander v. State, 264 Ga.App. 34, 589 S.E.2d 857 (November 7, 2003). “[A] prior conviction of possession with intent to distribute serves as evidence of the intent to distribute.” Clark v. State, 245 Ga.App. 267, 537 S.E.2d 742 (July 21, 2000). Conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute reduced to felony possession; no evidence of intent to distribute. “The officer, who had not been tendered as an expert, [testified] that she decided to arrest Clark for intent to distribute because ‘five bags of marijuana to me is a little much for personal use.’ … Police found eight sandwich bags containing marijuana in a van occupied by four people; six of the bags weighed a combined total of 1.1 ounces, and the weight of the other bags is unknown. Passengers were sitting on or next to several of the bags. The officer's opinion that the quantity of drugs recovered seemed to be ‘a little much for personal use’ is entirely consistent with Clark's testimony that the person who fled was selling the drugs to him and his friends and with the reasonable theory that the van's occupants intended to keep the marijuana for their own personal use. The fact that the marijuana was divided into separate sandwich-size bags is also consistent with the theory that the man who fled had so packaged the marijuana, and then sold or was in the process of selling the drugs to Clark and his passengers for their own use. We point out that the state produced no evidence that Clark had scales, guns, cash, drug packaging materials, or a large quantity of marijuana. See, e.g., Ward v. State, 195 Ga.App. 166, 168(3), 393 S.E.2d 21 (1990) (evidence sufficient considering large amount of drug paraphernalia, including scales, 50 grams of individually packaged marijuana, guns, and $1,724); Allen v. State, 191 Ga.App. 623, 382 S.E.2d 690 (1989) (intent to distribute proven where car occupied by two people contained four pounds of marijuana, nine grams of crack cocaine, a handgun, and drug paraphernalia); Holbrook v. State, 177 Ga.App. 318, 321(2), 339 S.E.2d 346 (1985) (distribution finding authorized where search revealed ten grams of cocaine, two chunks of hashish, four spoons with white powder residue, one pound of hashish, a container of marijuana, rolling papers, a cocaine analysis field kit, and $10,750 in cash); Allen v. State, 158 Ga.App. 691, 692(2), 282 S.E.2d 126 (1981)(eight pounds of marijuana along with the scales upon which the marijuana was found authorized finding of intent to distribute). Nor did the state introduce any evidence of prior drug sales by Clark or any testimony that Clark was observed selling or attempting to sell drugs in this case. Compare King v. State, 238 Ga.App. 575, 576(1), 519 S.E.2d 500 (1999) (evidence sufficient where defendant had prior drug sale conviction, expert testified that marijuana is typically sold in amounts of one to four ounces for personal use, and police recovered thirty-five pounds of marijuana and a book containing a list of initials and numbers). This case, in which four people were in possession of eight sandwich-size bags of marijuana, is clearly distinguishable from those cases in which one person alone possesses many individual packages or a large quantity of drugs. And this case is different from those in which the types and quantities of drug paraphernalia found suggest that the possessor intends to distribute rather than use the drugs. See, e.g., Holbrook, supra (paraphernalia included cocaine field-testing kit, cocaine-tainted spoons, rolling papers ‘and related drug paraphernalia’). From the evidence presented, the trial court was not authorized to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Clark intended to distribute the drugs.”