Aftеr an extended trial, running more than three weeks in June and July of 1971, the defendant Fierro was either found guilty or entered pleas of guilty to the following charges: Count I, armed kidnaping; Count II, armed kidnaping; Count III, kidnaping; Count IV, assault with a deadly weapon; Count V, assault with intent to commit a felony; Counts X, XII and XIV, each charging conspiracy; and Count XXI, aggravated assault.
Defendant Moore had eithеr entered pleas of guilty to or had been found guilty by the jury of the same crimes as defendant Fierro, except that in addition he was found guilty of Count XX, felon in possession of a pistol.
Each defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms which were to run consecutively to sentences in other cases. Defendants raise no issue as to the sentences other than the аpplication of A.R.S. § 13-1641.
The factual situation involves an attempted jail break at the Pima County Jail. A number of prisoners, including thе de *406 fendants, were participants in the attempted break. The victims in the alleged offenses were deputy sheriff jailers.
Thе defendants have raised some five issues on.appeal, the first of which questions the jurisdiction of the Superior Court to try the dеfendants by virtue of the preliminary hearing procedure followed in this case. The preliminary hearing was started before а justice of the peace who, prior to the conclusion of the hearing, commenced a term on the Superior Court to which he had been elected. With an intervening delay, the preliminary hearing was completed before the Superior Court Judge who had commenced it as a justice of the peace. The judge purported to sit as a “Magistrate for Justice Court No. 4.”
Superior Court Judges are clearly empowered to act as magistrates. State ex rel. Corbin v. Murry,
The dictаtes of economy of judicial time commend the procedure followed and we find no legal impediment thereto, nor have defendants showed any prejudice.
The defendants next complain that the trial court admitted evidence of оther unrelated criminal acts of the defendants. Although conceding that the admission of one felony, i.e., having been convictеd of crimes of violence, was a necessary element of one of the charges against each of the defendants, they contend that a showing of multiple convictions, however, was error.
The state contends that the introduction of evidence of conviction of multiple offenses shows motive for the attempted escape. It would appeаr that defendants had little to lose and much to gain if the escape effort was successful. The state cites State v. Turner,
The defendants next contend that the trial court erred in shackling all of the defendants in the course of the trial. Apparently during the trial an inmate of the jail reported that the defendants were planning an esсape. The court interrogated this inmate in camera. The defendants admitted their discussion of escape to their counsel but said it wаs all in the nature of a joke. The judge further had received information that the defendant Fierro, on a previous ocсasion, had appeared in court with a pistol concealed and strapped on his leg.
In light of the previous indications of the defendants’ violent and lawless natures, and the fact that they were being tried on allegations of serious and violent crimes, we cannot say that under the circumstances the trial judge abused his discretion in having the defendants shackled. State v. Rоbinson,
We do not believe that Illinois v. Allen,
As a fourth contention, the defendants argue that the prosecutor, Horton Weiss, was guilty of unprofessional and improper conduct amounting to reversible error. This is not a new or novel question for this сourt as it has been raised in numerous cases which have been prosecuted by Mr. Weiss. As we stated in State v. Moore,
The final point raised by defendants is the trial court’s aрplication of A.R. S. § 13-1641. Defendants contend that the state should have been required to make an election with respect to several counts charged in the information.
The state contends that it was proper for the court to submit each сount to the jury because there was at least one different element involved in each offense charged. The state further asserts that the holding of State v. Hunt,
The crux of the matter as it relates to A.R.S. § 13-1641 is whether or not defendants received double punishment for the same act or omissiоn. The fact of the submission of all counts to the jury was not reversible error. State v. Jorgenson,
In order to avoid the problem оf double punishment, the trial court refused to impose sentences on Counts V, XII, XIV, and XXI. We are not convinced of the merit of defendants’ argument that each defendant can be found guilty of only one act of kidnaping. The jury found that the defendants had kidnaрed the five different individuals. The kidnaping of each was a separate offense, although part of the acts may havе been committed together. The trial court’s action in refusing to sentence on certain of the counts cured the aspect of double punishment.
Judgments of ' conviction and sentences affirmed.