State v. Braidick, 231 Ariz. 357

Defendant appeals two unlawfully imprisonment convictions arising from one continuous restraint of the victim.
Victim was restrained in a bathroom, then carried to a bedroom, with ongoing threats and physical restraint for about five minutes.
Jury acquitted Counts III and IV, but convicted on the lesser-included offense of kidnapping (unlawful imprisonment) as to Counts I and II.
Before sentencing, defendant moved to vacate one unlawful imprisonment conviction on double jeopardy grounds; the court denied extending Jones to a lesser-included offense and suspended sentence.
Arizona appellate court holds kidnapping is a single continuous offense; unlawful imprisonment is a lesser-included offense that cannot be charged twice under continuous restraint.
The court vacates Count II and affirms Count I.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do Counts I and II violate double jeopardy as two imprisonment convictions?	State argues Jones is wrongly decided; continuous restraint may support multiple charges.	Braidick argues continuing restraint yields multiple unlawful imprisonment charges violates double jeopardy.	Count II vacated; only one valid conviction remains.
Are unlawful imprisonment convictions permissible as separate charges when kidnapping is a single ongoing restraint?	State contends unlawful imprisonment may be separate under the statute.	Braidick argues they are not separately punishable when restraint is continuous.	Unlawful imprisonment convictions limited; vacatur of additional conviction affirmed.

State v. Eagle, 196 Ariz. 188 (2000) (double jeopardy framework for same offense)
State v. Powers, 23 P.3d 668 (App. 2001) (de novo review of double jeopardy claims)
State v. Jones, 185 Ariz. 403 (App. 1995) (continuous restraint precludes multiple kidnapping charges)
State v. Herrera, 176 Ariz. 9 (1993) (jurors need not unanimously agree on specific intent in kidnapping)
State v. Stough, 137 Ariz. 121 (App. 1983) (various ways to be guilty of kidnapping; not lesser-included offenses per se)
Kamai v. State, 184 Ariz. 620 (App. 1995) (definition and relationship of lesser-included offenses)