by law enforcement, DHR conducted its own investigation and concluded that sufficient credible evidence existed to indicate that L.W.’s allegations were true. DHR’s findings were later confirmed by an independent administrative review. In therapy sessions that followed, L.W. consistently recounted details of the rape. Given the evidence presented at trial and the standard by which this Court reviews that evidence, we cannot say that the evidence was insufficient to support Israel’s convictions for rape in the first degree and rape in the second degree. Although Israel’s convictions for first-degree rape and second-degree rape arose out of a single incident, Israel could be convicted of both counts as charged in the indictment. See Burtram v. State, 733 So.2d 921 (Ala.Crim.App.1998) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the circuit court did not abuse
holding that offenses sentenced on the same day by the same judge are not related under the guidelines recognizing that charges of firstdegree rape under  13a661 and seconddegree rape under  13a662 arising out of a single incident are distinct offenses for which a defendant can be convicted and sentenced holding that perjury and obstruction of justice are distinct offenses under the blockbwrger test holding that expunction unavailable for individual charge arising out of arrest for improper relationship between an educator and student when petitioner convicted of possessing illegal firearms arising out of the same transaction holding that court cannot order restitution under the mvra to persons who are not victims of the offenses for which the defendant was convicted