State v. Jurden, 352 P.3d 455

Jurden entered a store shirtless and shoeless with an unleashed dog; he refused to leave and a security guard called police.
Two officers attempted to arrest Jurden for criminal trespass; a ~2-minute struggle ensued during which Jurden bit/kicked one officer and flailed/pulled away from the other.
A grand jury indicted Jurden for two counts of aggravated assault, two counts of resisting arrest (one per officer) under A.R.S. § 13-2508(A)(1), and one count of second-degree criminal trespass.
A jury convicted Jurden of one aggravated assault count, both resisting-arrest counts, and trespass; the court imposed concurrent sentences including two 3.75-year terms for the resisting-arrest convictions.
On appeal Jurden argued the two resisting-arrest convictions constituted a single offense under A.R.S. § 13-2508 and that the second conviction and sentence violated the Double Jeopardy Clause; the court reviewed the argument for fundamental error.

Issue	Jurden's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether two resisting-arrest convictions arising from a single, uninterrupted event constitute multiple punishments in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause	The unit of prosecution under A.R.S. § 13-2508 is the arrest/event, so a single uninterrupted resistance yields only one offense regardless of number of officers	The statute is victim-directed: each peace officer is a separate victim, so resisting multiple officers can yield multiple offenses and punishments	Court held the Legislature intended the unit of prosecution to be the arrest (event-focused); vacated the second resisting-arrest conviction and sentence; affirmed other convictions
Standard of review and remedy for unpreserved double jeopardy claim	N/A (Jurden raised the claim)	State argued convictions were proper; court applies fundamental-error review because claim was raised for first time on appeal	Although reviewed for fundamental error, double jeopardy sentencing errors are fundamental; court vacated multiplicitous conviction even though sentences were concurrent

Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54 (1978) (unit of prosecution defined by legislature controls whether conduct constitutes one or multiple offenses)
Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493 (1984) (double jeopardy protects against multiple punishments; legislature defines crimes and permissible punishments)
Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 (1977) (double jeopardy principles regarding multiple punishments)
State v. McGill, 213 Ariz. 147 (App. 2006) (sentence violating Double Jeopardy Clause is fundamental error)
State v. Burdick, 211 Ariz. 583 (App. 2005) (discussion of unit of prosecution and whether crimes against multiple persons permit separate punishments)
State v. Mitchell, 204 Ariz. 216 (App. 2003) (purpose of resisting-arrest statute is to protect officers/citizens from substantial risk of injury)
State v. Womack, 174 Ariz. 108 (App. 1992) (resisting-arrest statute prohibits assaultive behavior directed toward an arresting officer)
State v. Sorkhabi, 202 Ariz. 450 (App. 2002) (resisting arrest requires physical act directed at an officer; not a victimless crime)
Schoonover v. State, 281 Kan. 453 (2006) (unit of prosecution determined by statute’s scope of conduct rather than discrete acts or number of victims)
State v. Brown, 217 Ariz. 617 (App. 2008) (vacatur of multiplicitous convictions/sentences even where sentences run concurrently)