Arizona Revised Statutes
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-116 (2026)
Double punishment
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
An act or omission which is made punishable in different ways by different sections of the laws may be punished under both, but in no event may sentences be other than concurrent. An acquittal or conviction and sentence under either one bars a prosecution for the same act or omission under any other, to the extent the Constitution of the United States or of this state require.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 225
cases (23 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: State v. McDonagh, 304 P.3d 212 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
State v. McDonagh, 304 P.3d 212 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). “Consistent with A.R.S. § 13-116, the prison terms were ordered to run concurrently.”
State v. Watson, 459 P.3d 120 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). “”) section 13-116 by imposing a term of probation for Watson’s fraudulent schemes and artifices conviction to be served consecutively to the sentences of imprisonment for the theft convictions resulting from the scheme; and (2) although probation is not generally considered a…”
State v. Gordon, 778 P.2d 1204 (Ariz. 1989). “He contends because the charges arose from the same act, A.R.S. § 13-116 requires concurrent sentences.”
State v. Cook, 916 P.2d 1074 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). “Double Punishment Under A.R.S. § 13-116 The defendant argues that Arizona's double punishment statute, A.”
State v. Carreon, 107 P.3d 900 (Ariz. 2005). “Carreon contends that neither the sentence for Count 3, burglary in the first degree, nor that for Count 6, misconduct involving weapons, may be imposed consecutively under A.R.S. § 13-116 (2001), the statutory bar against double punishment.”
State v. Siddle, 47 P.3d 1150 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “Siddle also contends that his convictions for both the drug offenses and for possession of a deadly weapon during a felony drug offense violate federal and state double jeopardy principles and A.”
State v. Woods, 687 P.2d 1201 (Ariz. 1984). “Did sentencing defendant to consecutive terms violate the double punishment provisions of A.R.S. § 13-116? FACTS Defendant and his accomplice, Jeffrey Lange, gave sharply divergent stories of what occurred.”
State v. Runningeagle, 859 P.2d 169 (Ariz. 1993). “A.R.S. § 13-116 provides that “[a]n act or omis *67 sion which is made punishable in different ways by different sections of the laws may be punished under both, but in no event may sentences be other than concurrent.”
State v. Anderson, 111 P.3d 369 (Ariz. 2005). “¶ 140 Anderson’s statutory claim is based on A.R.S. § 13-116 (1989), which provides that “[a]n act or omission which is made punishable in different ways by differ *358 ent sections of the laws may be punished under both, but in no event may sentences be other than concurrent.”
State of Arizona v. Shawnte Shuree Jones, 334 P.3d 191 (Ariz. 2014). “¶ 1 AR.S. § 13-116 requires that concurrent sentences be imposed on a defendant whose convictions stem from a single act.”
State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson, 351 P.3d 1079 (Ariz. 2015). “¶ 79 Carlson argues that the consecutive sentences imposed for the felony-murder charges and the underlying kidnapping charges violate A.R.S. § 13-116, which states that “[a]n act or omission which is made punishable in different ways by different sections of the laws may be…”
State v. Sheaves, 747 P.2d 1237 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). “The trial court also ordered, over defense counsel’s objection, that appellant pay a $100 felony penalty assessment on each felony conviction, pursuant to A.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.