State v. Cotten, 263 P.3d 654

Cotten was convicted of one theft count and three misconduct involving weapons counts after police found two firearms reported stolen and Cotten, a prohibited possessor, in his girlfriend's home during a June 17, 2009 search.
The court found two historical felony convictions, one Mohave County and one California, and sentenced Cotten to four years for theft and eleven years for misconduct, with the misconduct sentences concurrent to each other but consecutive to theft.
The theft statute (A.R.S. § 13-1802) is treated as a single, unified offense; the jury was instructed to convict under either subsection (A)(1) or (A)(5) without a special verdict form.
Cotten challenged the duplicitous indictment, arguing two theft theories were charged in one count, and challenged the consecutive sentencing versus Gordon guidance, and the use of a California conviction for enhancement.
The court affirmed all convictions and sentences, concluding the indictment was not duplicitous, consecutive sentencing was proper under Gordon, and the California conviction could be used for enhancement after de novo review.
The California conviction (2003) was found to qualify as a felony in Arizona for enhancement, and the five-year look-back period was satisfied after accounting for time incarcerated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Duplicitous indictment of theft	Cotton argues two theft theories in one count without a special verdict form.	Cotton contends the indictment impermissibly duplicitous.	Indictment not duplicitous; theft is a single, unified offense.
Consecutive sentences for theft and weapons misconduct	Consecutive sentences violate § 13-116 because counts arose from the same Glock.	Gordon requires concurrent sentences for a single act.	Consecutive sentences permissible; the acts were separate under Gordon.
Use of California conviction for enhancement	California conviction qualifies as a historical felony for enhancement and within five-year look-back.	California conviction may not qualify as Arizona felony or be within five years.	California conviction qualifies for enhancement; within five-year period as calculated.

State v. Tramble, 144 Ariz. 48 (Ariz. 1985) (theft is a single unified offense)
State v. Paredes-Solano, 223 Ariz. 284 (App. 2009) (theft statute contains unified subsections)
In re Jeremiah T., 212 Ariz. 30 (App. 2006) (unanimity on charge, not on manner of commission)
State v. Wolter, 197 Ariz. 190 (App. 2000) (theft is a unified offense)
State v. Coleman, 147 Ariz. 578 (App. 1985) (technical charging and verdicts)
State v. Winter, 146 Ariz. 461 (App. 1985) (statutory interpretation of theft)
State v. Kamai, 184 Ariz. 620 (App. 1995) (limitations on duplicative charging)
State v. Gordon, 161 Ariz. 308 (Ariz. 1989) (framework for determining single act under 13-116)
State v. Runningeagle, 176 Ariz. 59 (Ariz. 1993) (distinct risks from multiple crimes)