Cited by

“[I]f multiple violations of the same statute are based on the same conduct,” therefore, “there can be only one conviction if there is a single offense.” ¶ 11 (2016).

This is because the double jeopardy clauses of our federal and state constitutions “‘protect[ ] against multiple punishments for the same offense.’” Carter, 249 Ariz. at 315, ¶ 7 ( ¶ 10 (2016)); see also U.S. Const. amend.

¶7 “The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.” ¶ 10 (2016); see also U.S. Const. amend.

The Double Jeopardy Clauses protect against “multiple punishments for the same offense.” Carter, 249 Ariz. at 315, ¶ 7 ( ¶ 10 (2016)).

See Soto-Fong, 250 Ariz. at 4 ¶ 6; ¶ 7 (2016).

The statutory definition of an offense “determines the scope of conduct for which a discrete charge can be brought, which the United States Supreme Court has referred to as the allowable unit of prosecution.” ¶ 11 (2016) (quoting United States v. Universal C.I.T.

where we determined that “regardless of the number of officers involved, § 13-2508 only permits one conviction when a defendant resists an arrest in the course of a single, continuous event.” Id.

See, e.g., Premier Physicians Grp., ¶ 9 (2016); ¶ 15 (2016); Rasor v. Northwest Hosp., LLC, ¶ 20 (2017).

Crimes are not lesser included offenses if each “requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” ¶ 10 (2016) (citation omitted).

Our goal in statutory interpretation is to “give effect to the legislature’s intent.” ¶ 15 (2016).

See, ¶ 15 (2016) (stating that if “the statute is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, we consider secondary principles of statutory interpretation”).

¶19 When interpreting a statute, our objective is to “give effect to the legislature’s intent.” ¶ 15 (2016).

§ 13-2508(A) set forth the “various ways to resist a single arrest,” and the statute “may be reasonably read as defining the offense as intentionally preventing or attempting to prevent an arrest.” ¶ 16 (2016); ¶ 15 (App. 2008) (stating a person commits resisting arrest “if either (A)(1) or (A)(2) is satisfied”).

In addition to protecting against multiple trials for the same offense, “[t]he Double Jeopardy Clause protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.” ¶ 10 (2016).