Najam, J.
….
[During a traffic stop,] Officer Clark … instructed Lewis to get out of the van. Lewis did not comply, and he abruptly drove off at a high rate of speed. Officer Clark got back into his police car and pursued Lewis in a high-speed chase.
After some time, Lewis pulled into a parking lot with only one route of egress. Officer Clark pulled into the parking lot behind Lewis, and he saw Lewis exit the van and run towards 30th Street. Officer Clark shouted at Lewis to stop, but Lewis, who was approximately three-quarters of a block away from the officer, continued to run. …
….
The State charged Lewis with resisting law enforcement, as a Class D felony, for fleeing by van; resisting law enforcement, as a Class A misdemeanor, for fleeing on foot; and operating a vehicle while license suspended, as a Class A misdemeanor. A jury found Lewis guilty as charged, and the trial court entered judgment and sentence accordingly. This appeal ensued.
….
Lewis contends that the trial court erred when it entered judgment of conviction on two counts of resisting law enforcement because both counts were based on one continuous incident of fleeing from the police. Essentially, this argument is a double jeopardy argument based on the federal constitution, which prohibits imposition of two punishments for a single offense arising from one set of operative circumstances. Arthur v. State, 824 N.E.2d 383, 385 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (citing Idle v. State, 587 N.E.2d 712, 715 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992), trans. denied), trans. denied. The State agrees with Lewis. Both Lewis and the State ask that we reverse Lewis’ conviction for resisting law enforcement, as a Class A misdemeanor, to resolve the double jeopardy violation.
….
The instant case is on all fours with Arthur. Lewis’ actions of fleeing by vehicle and then on foot constitute one continuous act of resisting law enforcement, and we hold that convictions on both counts cannot stand. Id. at 387. … As we held in Arthur, a defendant’s fleeing by vehicle and then on foot “constitute one continuous act of resisting law enforcement[.]” 824 N.E.2d at 387. We hereby remand this case to the trial court to vacate Lewis’ conviction for Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. [Footnote omitted.]
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Kirsch, J., and Barnes, J., concur.