State of Arizona v. Bobby Ray Carter Jr, 469 P.3d 449

Background:

In January 2015 Bobby Ray Carter stole an SUV (carjacking) and a tractor during a crime spree and was prosecuted for multiple offenses arising from those incidents.
For the SUV he was convicted of theft (value $4,000–$25,000), vehicle theft, and robbery; for the tractor he was convicted of theft (value $25,000+) and vehicle theft.
The trial court imposed lengthy prison terms based on prior felonies; the court of appeals reversed in part, vacating the lesser convictions (theft as to the SUV and vehicle theft as to the tractor).
The court of appeals reached conclusions inconsistent with its prior decision in State v. Garcia about the relationships among theft, vehicle theft, and robbery, prompting Supreme Court review to resolve the split.
The Arizona Supreme Court held that theft is a lesser-included offense of both vehicle theft and robbery, but vehicle theft is not a lesser-included offense of robbery, and it vacated the lesser convictions accordingly.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether theft is a lesser-included offense of vehicle theft	State: Vehicle theft is a form of theft; convictions can be distinct	Carter: Convicting both penalizes same conduct twice	Held: Yes. Vehicle theft has all theft elements plus two more; theft is lesser-included — double jeopardy bars both convictions
Whether theft is a lesser-included offense of robbery	State: Robbery includes theft elements plus force/presence; theft is lesser	Carter: Separate robbery elements justify separate convictions	Held: Yes. Robbery necessarily includes theft; double jeopardy bars convicting both for same act
Whether vehicle theft is a lesser-included offense of robbery	State: Vehicle theft is a subset of theft which is subset of robbery (per Garcia)	Carter: Vehicle theft differs in elements from robbery	Held: No. Vehicle theft requires permanent-deprivation and means-of-transportation; robbery requires force and taking from person/presence; each has an element the other lacks
Whether legislative intent rebuts Blockburger presumption permitting cumulative punishment	State: Unitary theft statute means look at all subsections so multiple punishments allowed	Carter: Legislative history separates vehicle theft penalties, so no intent to punish twice	Held: Legislative history shows vehicle theft was carved out with distinct penalty; no clear contrary intent to allow double punishment for theft + vehicle theft; but silence permits separate punishment for vehicle theft + robbery since they are different under Blockburger

Key Cases Cited

Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (same-elements test for double jeopardy)
United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993) (Blockburger is the controlling double jeopardy analysis)
Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333 (1981) (legislative intent controls whether multiple punishments are authorized)
Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856 (1985) (separate convictions can have adverse collateral consequences even with concurrent sentences)
State v. Wall, 212 Ariz. 1 (2006) (distinguishing "lesser-included" and "necessarily included" offenses)
State v. Garcia, 235 Ariz. 627 (App. 2014) (court of appeals decision the Supreme Court partially overruled regarding vehicle theft's relationship to theft and robbery)
State v. Caudillo, 124 Ariz. 410 (1979) (elements, not penalty severity, determine lesser-included status)