NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

EDWARD FIONNE COLLINS, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0042

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2020-107297-001

The Honorable Jeffrey A. Rueter, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Kevin M. Morrow

Counsel for Appellee

The Susser Law Firm, PLLC, Chandler

By Adam M. Susser

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 3-7-2024
STATE v. COLLINS

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins joined.

W E I N Z W E I G, Judge:

¶1 Edward Collins appeals his convictions and sentences for one 

count of molestation and one count of sexual conduct with a minor. He 

argues the convictions and sentences violate principles of double jeopardy. 

We disagree and thus affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Collins lived with his girlfriend and her eleven-year-old 

daughter, along with other minors. Because his girlfriend worked an 

overnight shift, Collins regularly watched her daughter at night. On one 

such night in May 2017, Collins inappropriately touched the daughter and 

forced her to perform sexual acts on him.

¶3 After returning to school the next day, the victim told a friend,

patrol officer, detective, and school officials what happened. According to 

the victim, Collins touched her private area (first act) and then forced her

to touch his penis (second act) while on the couch. Collins was charged 

with sexual conduct with a minor for touching the child inappropriately 

(Count 1), and molestation for forcing the child to touch him (Count 2). The 

child returned to her bedroom, but Collins summoned her back to the 

couch, where he forced her to masturbate him until he ejaculated (third act). 

Collins was also charged with sexual conduct with a minor for this act 

(Count 5). Police matched Collins’ DNA to DNA on a blanket at the crime 

scene. Collins fled the state, but was later apprehended.

¶4 A five-day jury trial was held in October 2022. Collins was 

convicted of one count of molestation (Count 2) and two counts of sexual 

conduct with a minor under the age of twelve (Counts 1 and 5). He was 

sentenced to life with the possibility of parole after 35 years for Count 1; 17 

years for Count 2; and 20 years for Count 5, to run consecutively.

¶5 Collins timely appealed his convictions and sentences for 

molestation (Count 2) and one count of sexual conduct with a minor under 

the age of twelve (Count 5). Collins does not contest his conviction and 
STATE v. COLLINS

Decision of the Court

3

sentence for one count of sexual conduct with a minor (Count 1). We have 

jurisdiction. See Ariz. Const. art. VI, § 9; A.R.S. § 12-120.21(A)(1), A.R.S. §§

13-4031, -4033(A).

DISCUSSION

¶6 Collins argues that double jeopardy precludes his convictions 

and sentences. Because Collins failed to raise the issue of double jeopardy 

at trial, we review for fundamental error. State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 

567, ¶ 19 (2005). A double jeopardy violation is fundamental error. State v. 

McGill, 213 Ariz. 147, 153, ¶ 21 (2006).

¶7 Collins contends his convictions and sentences for 

molestation (Count 2) and sexual conduct with a minor (Count 5) violate 

the right to be free from double jeopardy. He contends that molestation is 

a lesser-included offense of sexual conduct with a minor and that the same 

act was used to prove his guilt on both charges.

¶8 The double jeopardy clauses of the United States and Arizona

Constitutions protect criminal defendants from multiple convictions and 

punishments for the “same offense.” U.S. Const. amend. V; Ariz. Const. art. 

II, § 10. A defendant may not be convicted for both an offense and its lesserincluded offense because they are considered the “same offense” for double 

jeopardy purposes. State v. Ortega, 220 Ariz. 320, 324, ¶ 9 (App. 2008); see

also Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932).

¶9 Molestation is a lesser-included offense of sexual conduct 

with a minor. Ortega, 220 Ariz. at 328, ¶¶ 24–25. But a conviction for both

is proper if there is evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude, beyond a 

reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed two separate acts. Id. at 

329, ¶¶ 27–28; see also State v. Boldrey, 176 Ariz. 378, 381 (App. 1993) 

(multiple sexual acts that occur during the same incident may be treated as 

separate crimes).

¶10 That is what happened here. According to trial testimony, 

Collins touched the child inappropriately (first act) and then forced her to

touch his penis (second act) while on the couch. The child returned to her 

bedroom, but Collins later summoned her back to the couch and forced her 

to masturbate him until he ejaculated (third act). Collins was convicted of 

sexual conduct with a minor for the first act (Count 1), molestation for the 

second act (Count 2), and sexual conduct with a minor for the third act, 

which occurred after the child returned to bed (Count 5). The verdict forms

identified these separate events, as the prosecutor did during closing 

statements. The record had sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to 
STATE v. COLLINS

Decision of the Court

4

conclude that Collins committed three separate acts giving rise to three 

separate convictions. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to 

sustain the jury’s verdicts, State v. Miles, 211 Ariz. 475, 476, ¶ 2 (App. 2005), 

we find no violation of double jeopardy.

CONCLUSION

¶11 Collins’ convictions and sentences are affirmed.