In State v. Paredes-Solano, 223 Ariz. 284,15, 222 P.3d 900, 906 (App. 2009), the Court noted the conduct described in 13-3553(A)(2) "can only occur after an image has been created" and harms the minor by perpetuating "those images." 223 Ariz. 284,10, 15, 222 P.3d at 904, 906. Dixon contends this language supports his suggestion that the same minor must be victimized both by the creation of a depiction and by its possession before such possession can support a conviction. However, the cited language neither addresses nor supports Dixon's argument, but merely acknowledges that each subsection refers to the same type of depiction. Moreover, the case explicitly refutes Dixon's suggestion that proof of one offense is a necessary prerequisite to proving the other by reiterating that "the two subsections . . . create offenses that are separate and distinct." Id.15.