Opinion ID: 2306903
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Trial Court Committed Plain Error In Sentencing Zugehoer.

Text: Zugehoer next claims that the State unlawfully subjected him to multiple charges based on the same underlying conduct. Zugehoer contends that he committed only one harm, and that although Section 916(b) permits the State to establish Home Improvement Fraud by one of the three methods, that does not allow the State to bring three separate charges. Because Zugehoer did not present this claim to the trial court, we review it for plain error. This Court has previously held ... that a multiplicity violation may constitute plain error. [14] The State concedes that a multiplicity violation occurred here and that the case should be remanded for resentencing. The multiplicity doctrine is one of the protections afforded by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution. [15] The Double Jeopardy Clause protects a defendant against (i) successive prosecutions; (ii) multiple charges under separate statutes; and (iii) being charged multiple times under the same statute. [16] Under the multiplicity doctrine, the State is prohibited from manufactur[ing] additional counts of a particular crime by `the simple expedient of dividing a single crime into a series of... units.' [17] The courts have looked to legislative intent in determining whether the constitutional protection against Double Jeopardy permits multiple counts in a particular statutory setting. [18] Section 916 was enacted to substantially increase the protection afforded to homeowners against dishonest and predatory home contractors. [19] Section 916(b)(4) was originally enacted without subparts, but in 2000 it was amended by separating the paragraph into three subparts. [20] The amendment was intended to clarify that section to make it clear that if the offender engages in any of the three delineated acts with intention to commit theft, he or she is guilty of home improvement fraud. [21] Consistent with that legislative intent, the trial court instructed the jury as to all three subparts of Section 916(b)(4). The State may charge different theories of criminal liability for the same offense in a single indictment. Whether multiple theories of criminal liability for the same offense are alleged in a single count or in multiple counts, the jury must (unanimously) decide which methodif anywas used to commit the alleged offense. [22] But where, as here, the jury unanimously finds that the defendant used multiple methods to commit a single offense, the multiple counts merge, and the trial judge may enter judgment only on one count. [23] Because the trial court sentenced Zugehoer for convictions of three separate counts, the court erred, as the State concedes.