Cited by

1/16/08), stated, “[O]ne who intentionally possesses child pornography can be charged on a separate count, and sentenced separately for each count upon which he or she is convicted, for each child in each sexual performance captured within photographs, films, videotapes, and/or other visual reproductions that comprise th

1116108), ( The statute governing offense of intentional possession of pornography involving juveniles allows a separate conviction on a separate count for each child, in each sexual performance, captured in any photographs, films, videotapes, or other visual reproductions that a defendant intentionally possesses.).

1/16/08), to 24 determine whether the possession of multiple pornographic images should be treated as a single offense.

1/16/08), restitution was imposed pursuant to La.Code Crim.P.

1/16/08), see also State v. Echeverria, 03-898 (La.

1/16/08), 15 Instead, Defendant received mid-range sentences for each of the six convictions of pornography involving juveniles under the age of 13.

s actions constitute an attempt, “it is a well-recognized and long-established rule of statutory construction that a statute should be interpreted as a whole to effect the legislative intent and should be construed in such way to reconcile, if possible, apparent inconsistencies of ambiguities so that each part is given effect.” State v. Fussell, 06–2595 (La.1/16/08), (citing State ex rel.

1/16/08), (footnote omitted).” Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 883.2 provides in pertinent part: A. In all cases in which the court finds an actual pecuniary loss to a victim, or in any case where the court finds that costs have been incurred by the victim in connection with a criminal prosecution, the tria

1/16/08), , 1238 (footnote omitted).

1/16/08), ] at 1234 (citing State v. Granier, 99-3511 (La.

1/16/08), ,] at 1234 (citing State v. Granier , 99-3511 (La.

1/16/08), ; State v. Williamson, 04-1440 (La.

1/16/08), (citing State v. Johnson, 03-2993 (La.

See generally State v. Fussell, 06-2595, p. 19-20 (La.1/16/08), (La.

1/16/08), Defendant could have been charged separately ―for each child, in each performance, captured in any photographs, films, videotapes, or other visual reproductions that a defendant intentionally possesses.‖ Finally, this court has reviewed the jurisprudence to compare the maximum sentence imposed on the

1/16/08), this court on error patent review, found the trial court imposed indeterminate sentences by ordering restitution without specifying the amount of restitution and without specifying on which count or counts restitution was being imposed.

5 Cir. 12/29/09) , , citing State v. Fussell, 06-2595 (La.1/16/08), .

See State v. Fussell, 06-2595 (La.1/16/08), , 3 and United States v. Stanley, supra.

1/16/08), (discussing whether the evidence showed that the prospective jurors’ relationships with witnesses would have influenced the prospective jurors).

o determine whether defendant’s actions constitute an attempt, “it is a well-recognized and long-established rule of statutory construction that a statute should be interpreted as a whole to effect the legislative intent and should be construed in such way to reconcile, if possible, apparent inconsistencies of ambiguities so that each part is given effect.” State v. Fussell, 06-2595 (La.1/16/08), (citing State ex rel.

State v. Fussed, 2006-2595 (La.01/16/08), .

P. art. 883.2; State v. Fussell, 2006-2595 (La.1/16/08), .

Similarly, in State v. Fussell, 06-2595, (La.1/16/08), , the Louisiana Supreme Court considered the legislative intent of La.

State v. Fussell, 06-2595, p. 25 (La.1/16/08), .

1/16/08), this court, on error patent review, found the trial court imposed indeterminate sentences by ordering restitution without specifying the amount of restitution and without specifying on which count or counts restitution was being imposed.