State v. ArnoldState v. Arnold
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Hays
Dеfendant Richard Grant was charged with a number of crimes on the felony and misdemeanor levels when pоlice found him in possession of a CB radio which had been reported stolen from a locked pickup truck earlier that same evening. He entered a plea agreement with the city prosecutor and pled no contest to a petty theft, in exchange for dismissal of other charges pending in city court.
Shortly thereafter, defendant Grant appeared in Superior Court for trial on felony chаrges arising out of this same incident, one of which was burglary. The Superior Court judge dismissed the burglary, on defendant’s motion, based on the belief that to try defendant for the burglary after he’d pled guilty to the petty theft in city court would violate defendant’s right to be free from double jeopardy and double punishment.
The state chаllenged the trial judge’s decision, but the Court of Appeals refused to take jurisdiction of its petition for special action. We granted a petition for review.
In order to determine both the double jeopardy and double punishment issues, we must briefly set forth the elements of petty theft and burglary as they apply tо the facts of this particular case.
Petty theft consists of the taking of personal property, with a value of less than $100, from another, with the intent to permanently deprive the other thereof.
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Where a defendant is convicted of or acquitted of a particular crime, the prohibition of double jеopardy protects that defendant from further prosecution for the same crime or any lesser included offense.
State v. Hollander,
112 Ariz. 35, 537 P.2d 22 (1975);
Clearly, from the elements first set out, petty theft and burglary are not the same crime; nor is one a lesser included offense of the other, as either can be committed without necessarily committing the other. State v. Butrick, 113 Ariz. 563, 558 P.2d 908 (1976).
Therefore, prosecuting defendant for both would not submit him to double jeop
DOUBLE PUNISHMENT
“An act or omission which is made punishable in different ways by different sections of the law may bе punished under either, but in no event under more than one. An acquittal or conviction and sentence under either one bars a prosecution for the same act or omission under any other.” (emphasis added).
This section becomes applicable when a singlе act violates more than one statute.
State v. Mitchell,
106 Ariz. 492, 478 P.2d 517 (1970). Another way of expressing this would be to say that where onе single act of the accused encompasses the elements of more than one crime,
Looking at the facts of this case and the elements of the crime in quеstion, it is clear that a plea of guilty to petty theft does not bar the state from prosecuting for burglаry. The elements of those crimes are not even similar. It is equally clear that if the state can prоve the defendant performed acts which resulted in the elements of a completed burglary, they will not be the same acts which resulted in the petty theft. Defendant has admitted he took the CB radio from another with the intent to deprive the other thereof. That should not deprive the state of the oppоrtunity to prove defendant entered the motor vehicle (from which the CB was stolen) with the intent to commit petty theft. They are separate acts, designated by the legislature as separate crimes.
It hаs long been the rule in Arizona that one may be convicted of both burglary and theft arising out of the same inсident. We establish no new law herein.
State v. Hutton,
87 Ariz. 176, 349 P.2d 187 (1960). We hope we have clarified, however, the general rules concerning
We wish to clear up one last issue argued in the memorandum of the real party in interest. He is under the misapprehension that the same “proof” cannot be used to convict a defendаnt of two crimes. That is not correct. Using the same evidence to convict a defendant of two different crimes is not violative of
It follows that the trial court erred in dismissing the burglary charge against defendant. Thе dismissal of the burglary charge is set aside and the case is remanded for trial.
CAMERON, C. J., STRUCKMEYER, V. C. J., and HOLOHAN and GORDON, JJ., concur.
Notes
We are aware of the United States Supreme Court decision in Waller v. Florida, 397 U.S. 387, 90 S.Ct. 1184, 25 L.Ed.2d 435 (1970), and find it easily distinguishable from this case. The question before that Court was whether a municipal and state court within one state could try a defendant for the same crime based on the “separate sovereign entities” theory. It was established, for purposes of that appeal, that the defendant therein had already been tried in a municipal court for violations of lesser included offenses of the felony pending against him in the state court.