State v. Cope, 387 P.3d 746

Cope was charged with shoplifting (A.R.S. 13-1805.A.1) and two counts of organized retail theft (A.R.S. 13-1819.A.1 and .A.2).
Trial occurred in absentia; jury convicted on all three counts; aggravating factors found on each count.
The court sentenced Cope to nine-and-a-half years for each conviction, to be served concurrently.
On appeal, Cope challenges the shoplifting conviction as a lesser-included offense of the organized retail theft conviction.
The Arizona Court of Appeals vacates the shoplifting conviction but affirms both organized retail theft convictions and their sentences.
Disposition: Affirmed in part; Vacated in part.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is shoplifting a lesser-included offense of organized retail theft under § 13-1819.A.2?	Cope (State) argues shoplifting is a lesser-included offense.	Cope contends the shoplifting conviction should be vacated.	Yes; shoplifting is a lesser-included offense of § 13-1819.A.2.
Do convictions for organized retail theft under § 13-1819.A.1 and A.2 violate double jeopardy when based on the same theft?	Cope argues double jeopardy bars two counts.	Cope contends the two counts are duplicative.	No; § 13-1819.A.1 and A.2 require different elements, so no double jeopardy violation.

State v. Gonzalez, 216 Ariz. 11 (Ariz. App. 2007) (de novo review of statutory interpretation on appeal)
State v. Johnson, 195 Ariz. 553 (Ariz. App. 1999) (principles for lesser-included offenses in appellate review)
State v. Garcia, 235 Ariz. 627 (Ariz. App. 2014) (double jeopardy when multiple punishments arise from same offense)
State v. Chabolla-Hinojosa, 192 Ariz. 360 (Ariz. App. 1998) (definition of lesser-included offense)
State v. Veloz, 236 Ariz. 532 (Ariz. App. 2015) (intent element in organized retail theft vs. shoplifting)
Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493 (U.S. 1984) (blockburger/Two offenses require proof of different elements)
Taylor v. Sherrill, 169 Ariz. 335 (Ariz. 1991) (double jeopardy analysis framework)
Hernandez v. Super. Ct. of Maricopa Cty., 179 Ariz. 515 (Ariz. App. 1994) (two offenses distinguished by elements)
Blockburger v. U.S., 284 U.S. 229 (1932) (test for multiple offenses: elements-based)
State v. Harm, 236 Ariz. 402 (Ariz. App. 2015) (appropriateness of de novo review for double jeopardy)
State v. Siddle, 202 Ariz. 512 (Ariz. App. 2002) (application of double jeopardy to multiple counts)
State v. Anderson, 210 Ariz. 327 (Ariz. 2005) (elements-difference test for multiple offenses)
State v. Powers, 200 Ariz. 123 (Ariz. App. 2001) (double jeopardy analysis for same act)