from the Superior Court in Maricopa County. The Honorable
Brian Kaiser, Commissioner. No. CR-2012-150667. Opinion of
the Court of Appeals, Division One. 237 Ariz. 423, 352 P.3d
455 (App. 2015) .
from the Superior Court in Maricopa County, AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART. Opinion of the Court of Appeals, Division
Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General, John R. Lopez IV,
Solicitor General, Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel, Criminal
Appeals Section, Christopher M. DeRose (argued), Special
Assistant Attorney General for Appeals, Criminal Appeals
Section, Phoenix, Attorneys for State of Arizona.
County Public Defender's Office, Jeffrey L. Force
(argued), Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, Attorneys for
Samkeita Jahveh Jurden.
BOLICK authored the opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF
JUSTICE BALES, VICE CHIEF JUSTICE PELANDER, and JUSTICES
BRUTINEL and TIMMER joined.
We granted review to determine whether multiple convictions
under Arizona's resisting arrest statute, A.R.S. §
13-2508, that arise from a single, uninterrupted course of
conduct constitute multiple convictions for the same offense
in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. We hold that,
regardless of the number of officers involved, § 13-2508
only permits one conviction when a defendant resists an
arrest in the course of a single, continuous event.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In September 2012, Samkeita Jahveh Jurden walked into a
department store shirtless, shoeless, and with an unleashed
dog. The store's security guard contacted the police
after Jurden refused to leave. Jurden remained even after two
officers arrived and also asked him to leave. When the
officers attempted to arrest Jurden, he resisted by biting
and kicking one officer and flailing and pulling his arms
away from the other. The officers struggled with Jurden for
nearly four minutes before subduing and handcuffing him. The
resistance and arrest formed one, uninterrupted course of
A grand jury indicted Jurden on two counts of aggravated
assault, one count of criminal trespass, and two counts of
resisting arrest under A.R.S. § 13-2508(A)(1)--one for
each officer resisted. A jury found Jurden guilty on all
charges except one aggravated assault count.
The trial court sentenced Jurden to concurrent rather than
consecutive terms of imprisonment. In accordance with A.R.S.
§ 13-711(A), the trial judge explained his reasoning:
[A]ll the more when I watch the video in this case, it's
all one incident and it starts and it just continues. . . .
Perhaps, if there were some lengthy delay between one event
and another, there might be a better justification of the
idea of consecutive sentences. But this all starts and ends
in just one big melee, really, and so the idea of consecutive
sentences here doesn't seem appropriate to me, under the
On appeal, Jurden argued that his two convictions under
§ 13-2508 for resisting arrest arose from a single
offense and, therefore, his second conviction arose from the
same offense and violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. In a
split decision, the court of appeals agreed and vacated one
of the convictions. State v. Jurden, 237 Ariz. 423,
429 ¶ 21, 352 P.3d 455, 461 (App. 2015).
We granted review because whether § 13-2508 authorizes
multiple convictions and punishments for resisting arrest in
one, uninterrupted course of conduct that involves more than
one officer presents a recurring issue of statewide
importance. We have jurisdiction pursuant to ...