Appellant entered a no contest plea to multiple counts of possession of child pornography (PC 311.11(a)) and one count of attempted possession of child pornography (PC 664/311.11(a)). Upon entry of his plea, defense counsel argued that he was doing so while preserving his right to argue on appeal that he could not be convicted of multiple possession counts based on the charged conduct. Appellant obtained a certificate of probable cause and renewed this contention on appeal. The Court of Appeal reversed one of the possession counts because two of them were based on a single act of possession - the same videotape provided the factual basis for each of the two convictions. In so ruling, the Court of Appeal rejected the People's contention that the two counts involved separate and discrete offenses because each segment of the videotape involved different young women taped at different times. In addition, the Court of Appeal reversed appellant's attempted possession conviction, as the attempt conviction was based on an attempt to record another person on the same tape that formed the basis for the actual possession conviction.