Case Name: The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Jesus Mendi Bles VALENZUELA, Appellant
Court: Arizona Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Arizona
Decision Date: 1968-11-26
Citations: 8 Ariz. App. 444
Docket Number: No. 2 CA-CR 77
Parties: The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Jesus Mendi Bles VALENZUELA, Appellant.
Judges: HATHAWAY, C. J., and KRUCKER, J., concur.
Reporter: Arizona Appeals Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 444–444

Head Matter:
447 P.2d 259
The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Jesus Mendi Bles VALENZUELA, Appellant.
No. 2 CA-CR 77.
Court of Appeals of Arizona. Division 2.
Nov. 26, 1968.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 2, 1969.
Review Denied Feb. 18, 1969.
Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., Darrell F. Smith, Former Atty. Gen., Carl Waag, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
W. Edward Morgan, Tucson, for appellant.

Opinion:
MOLLOY, Judge.
The only question raised on this appeal is whether an accused can be convicted and punished for both grand theft and burglary when the offenses charged arise out of the same series of occurrences.
The appellant concedes that the decision of State v. Hutton, 87 Ariz. 176, 349 P.2d 187 (1960), is directly in point and unfavorable to his contention. He asks that this decision he overruled on the authority of People v. McFarland, 58 Cal.2d 748, 26 Cal.Rptr. 473, 376 P.2d 449 (1962).
Our Supreme Court considered a similar contention in State v. Green, 98 Ariz. 254, 403 P.2d 809 (1965), and refused to recede from the rationale of its prior decisions in Hutton, supra, and State v. Vallejos, 89 Ariz. 76, 358 P.2d 178 (1960).
We neither have the inclination nor the authority to overrule the established law of this state on this subject. See State v. Forteson, 8 Ariz.App. 468, 447 P.2d 560 (1968) (released simultaneously with this opinion).
Judgment affirmed.
HATHAWAY, C. J., and KRUCKER, J., concur.