State v. McDonagh, 304 P.3d 212

McDonagh was convicted by a jury of four counts of aggravated DUI arising from a single driving incident.
For each count, the court imposed four-month prison terms and two years of concurrent probation, plus four separate Assessments totaling $4,630 per count.
The joint report showed payments applied per-count (no cross-crediting), totaling $18,520 if paid per count.
McDonagh appeals, arguing the four Assessments violate A.R.S. § 13-116 because they arise from a single act and were not properly credited.
The trial court’s interpretation would require four separate payments; the issue is whether Assessments are concurrent via crediting, or must be paid separately.
The court ultimately modifies the sentences so that the Assessments run concurrently with inter-count crediting, totaling $4,630.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the Assessments 'sentences' subject to § 13-116?	McDonagh contends Assessments are punishments and fall under § 13-116.	State argues Assessments are not traditional fines and may be treated differently.	Assessments are 'sentences' for § 13-116 purposes.
Did the four convictions arise from a single act of driving?	McDonagh argues single act precludes cumulative punishment.	State asserts four counts, though arising from same incident, still constitute separate offenses.	Convictions arose from a single act of driving.
Has the Legislature overridden § 13-116 for these Assessments?	McDonagh requests coercive interpretation to credit per sum across counts.	State relies on § 28-1389 as potential override, but court finds no clear override.	No clear legislative override; concurrent Assessments required.
What is the proper remedy if concurrent crediting is required?	McDonagh seeks four separate payments totaling $18,520.	State asserts credits should apply so total remains $4,630 with concurrent payment.	Sentences modified to require concurrent payment with cross-count crediting; total is $4,630.

State v. Sheaves, 155 Ariz. 538 (App. 1987) (fines constitute punishments subject to § 13-116)
State v. Payne, 223 Ariz. 555 (App. 2009) (prosecution fees treated as penalties not restitution)
Anderjeski v. City Court of Mesa, 135 Ariz. 549 (1983) (clarifies § 13-116’s concurrent sentences when multiple sections apply)
State v. Siddle, 202 Ariz. 512 (App. 2002) (identical elements test for single-act concept)
State v. Cotten, 228 Ariz. 105 (App. 2011) (consecutive sentences under § 13-116 analyzed via transaction approach)
State v. Arnoldi, 176 Ariz. 236 (App. 1993) (purpose and primacy of concurrency directive under § 13-116)