Cited by

¶18 To determine the length of a defendant’s potential sentence, we consider “the possible cumulative sentences in each case and not just the possible sentence for each count or charge.” (citation modified); (explaining the Arizona Constitution requires a twelve-person jury when “the total possible authorized sentence in a criminal case” is 30 years or greater) (emphasis added).

(stating, in case addressing consecutive sentencing rather than units of prosecution, “When the act of firing one bullet results in two persons being injured, the person firing the bullet is responsible for two separate and distinct injuries and therefore has committed two assaults.”), abrogated on other g

–70 (App. 1982); Hampton, 213 Ariz. at 182, ¶ 65

¶ 12 (App. 2012) (finding § 13-116 inapplicable where defendant committed multiple violations of the same law); (“Because both counts are punishable under the same sections of the law, consecutive sentences would not have constituted double punishment in violation of our double punishment statute, A.R.S.

Consecutive sentences are proper where the convictions are for separate and distinct crimes, and against multiple victims

§ 13-116; ¶ 12 (App. 2012) (finding § 13-116 inapplicable where defendant committed multiple violations of the same law); (“Because both counts are punishable under the same sections of the law, consecutive sentences would not have constituted double punishment in violation of our double punishment statute, A.R.S.

State v. Henley, 141 Ariz. 465, 467, -14, -32 (App. 1990), State v. Robe

P.2d 1220 (1984), and reviewing for fundamental error because Diaz had not raised the issue below, the court reversed the convictions based on “denial of Diaz’s right to a twelve-person jury.”1 Id.

8 When determining whether a sentence of thirty years or more is authorized and thus a twelve-member jury is required under Article 2, Section 23, courts take into account sentencing enhancements, and whether consecutive sentences can be imposed for multiple offenses, see State v. Henley, 141 Ariz. 465, 468

Our cases have referred to this error both as “fundamental error,” , ¶ 21 , , ¶ 10 , and as “structural error,” ¶¶

-68 , -23 (1984) (holding two offenses of assault occurred where one bullet injured two victims; thus consecutive sentences proper).

(citation omitted); , (holding two offenses of assault occurred where one gunshot struck two victims).

Prince, 142 Ariz. at 259 , 689 P.2d at 518 ; State v. Henley, 141 * , 541, , Thompson , 139 Ariz. at 134, 677 P.2d at 297 ; Fancy, 139 Ariz. at 78 , 676 P.2d at 1136 .

Id.; -68, -23 (1984) (no error in imposing consecutive sentences for two counts of aggravated assault when bullet passed through first victim and struck second); (consecutive sentences allowed for multiple crimes committed against

Prince, 142 Ariz. at 259 , 689 P.2d at 518 ; , , , Thompson , 139 Ariz. at 134, 677 P.2d at 297 ; Fancy, 139 Ariz. at 78 , 676 P.2d at 1136 .

See, P.2d 1220 (1984); P.2d 482 (App. 1989).

See, -69 , -24 (1984); , , , ” 158 Ariz. at 424 n. 4, 763 P.2d at 244 n. 4 (1988).

at 2, 790 P.2d at 288 (“Intent to murder is transferable to each unintended victim once there is an attempt to kill someone.”); , (“When the act of firing one bullet results in two persons being injured, the person firing the bullet is responsible for two separate and distinct injuries and therefore has committed two assaults.

See, , (aggravated assault); , (attempted first-degree murder); , (child abuse).

See, P.3d 1134 (2001); P.2d 1220 (1984); P.2d 823 (App. 1989); P.2d 482 (App. 1989); P.2d 1034 (App. 1982).