from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No.
CR2012-153989-001 The Honorable Pamela Hearn Svoboda, Judge
IN PART; VACATED IN PART
Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix By Eric
Knobloch Counsel for Appellee
Michael J. Dew, Attorney at Law, Phoenix By Michael J. Dew
Counsel for Appellant
Patricia A.Orozco delivered the opinion of the Court, in
which Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould and Judge Peter B.
Lynn Cope appeals her convictions and sentences for
shoplifting under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section
13-1805.A.1 (West 2016) and for organized retail theft under
both A.R.S. §§ 13-1819.A.1 and -A.2. Because we
conclude that Cope's shoplifting conviction was a
lesser-included offense of her conviction for organized
retail theft pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1819.A2, we vacate
Cope's shoplifting conviction. However, because we
conclude that Cope's convictions for organized retail
theft under A.R.S. §§ 13-1819.A.1 and -A.2 do not
violate double jeopardy, we affirm her convictions and
sentences on both charges.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State filed a direct complaint against Cope, charging her
with the following offenses: Count 1, Shoplifting, in
violation of A.R.S. § 13-1805.A1; Count 2, Organized
Retail Theft, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1819.A.1; and
Count 3, Organized Retail Theft, in violation of A.R.S.
§ 13-1819.A.2. After a trial conducted in absentia, a
jury convicted Cope on all three counts. The jury also found
aggravating factors on each count, and after Cope was taken
into custody, the court sentenced her to nine-and-a-half
years' incarceration on each conviction, to be served
timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6,
Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S.
§§ 12-120.21.A.1, 13-4031, and -4033.A.1.
contends her shoplifting conviction under A.R.S. § 13-
1805.A.1 should be vacated, because it is a lesser-included
offense of her conviction for organized retail theft pursuant
to § 13-1819.A.2.
interpretation is a question of law we review de novo.
State v. Gonzalez,216 Ariz. 11, 12, ¶ 2 (App.
2007) (citing State v. Johnson,195 Ariz. 553, 554,
¶ 3 (App. 1999)). Double jeopardy protects a defendant
from multiple punishments arising from the same offense.
State v. Garcia,235 Ariz. 627, 629, ¶ 5 (App.
2014); see U.S. Const. amend. V; Ariz. Const. art.
2, § 10. "Because greater and lesser-included
offenses are considered the 'same offense, ' the
Double Jeopardy Clauses forbid the imposition of a separate
punishment for a lesser offense [, ] when a defendant has
been convicted and sentenced for the greater offense."
Id. "To constitute a lesser-included offense,
the crime must be 'composed solely of some[, ] but not
all of the elements of the greater crime so that it is
impossible to have committed the crime charged without having
committed the lesser ...