State v. J Felde, 478 P.3d 825

Jan. 2016: ICAC investigator traced digital downloads of child‑sex images to an IP address leased by J‑Cee Felde; officers seized his computer equipment and he admitted downloading such images.
State originally charged 100 counts of possession of child pornography (§ 45‑5‑625(1)(e), MCA); charges were later reduced to 49 by amended information (State tied counts to 49 distinct images on Felde’s Gateway tower).
Felde pleaded guilty to Count 1, then moved to dismiss the remaining counts as included offenses under § 46‑11‑410(2)(a), arguing all images constituted a single offense because they were found on one device in one seizure.
District Court denied the motion to dismiss, ordered an amended information for clarity, and later denied a renewed motion; Felde pleaded guilty to Amended Counts 1–4 while preserving appeal of Counts 2–4.
Issue on appeal: whether the statutory multiple‑charges rule forbids multiple convictions for separate child‑pornography images discovered on the same computer on the same day. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions for each image.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 46‑11‑410(2)(a) bars multiple convictions for possession of multiple child‑pornography images found on the same device and discovered in the same seizure	Each image is a separate act/medium: images depicted different victims, were created/accessed at different times, so separate offenses may be prosecuted	All images arose from a single transaction and the “visual medium” is the computer; possession of the device/its images is one offense, so additional counts are included offenses barred by § 46‑11‑410(2)(a)	Court: convictions for each image are permitted. The statute’s plain language treats “any image” as covering each discrete image; Counts 2–4 are not included within Count 1

State v. Strong, 380 Mont. 471, 356 P.3d 1078 (interpreting included‑offense rule under Montana law)
State v. Ellison, 393 Mont. 90, 428 P.3d 826 (same‑transaction analysis focuses on defendant’s conduct and purpose, not charged elements)
Langemo v. Mont. Rail Link, Inc., 307 Mont. 293, 38 P.3d 782 (statutory interpretation: give words their ordinary meaning; ‘‘any’’ means ‘‘every’’)
State v. Harrington, 389 Mont. 236, 405 P.3d 1248 (possession of child‑pornography images alone violates § 45‑5‑625(1)(e))
Parker v. Crist, 190 Mont. 376, 621 P.2d 484 (prosecutor’s discretion to charge separate acts involving multiple victims)