In State v. Hardin, 169 Ariz. 440, 441-42, 819 P.2d 1026, 1027-28 (App. 1991), the defendant was involved in a high-speed chase that ended with his vehicle crashing into the rear of a police vehicle. 169 Ariz. at 441, 819 P.2d at 1027. He was charged with several felony offenses, and also received a citation requiring him to appear before the city court on a charge of misdemeanor DUI. Id. Before the defendant appeared in city court, however, a grand jury issued a supervening indictment, charging him with nine offenses, including two felony counts of DUI associated with the incident Hardin, 169 Ariz. at 441, 819 P.2d at 1027. Before trial was held in superior court on the charges present in the supervening indictment, the defendant pled guilty in city court to misdemeanor DUI, and then filed a motion in superior court to dismiss the felony DUI counts on grounds of double jeopardy. Id. The superior court granted the motion, and the State appealed. Id. The Court affirmed, reasoning that the supervening indictment in superior court for felony DUI did not automatically oust the city court of jurisdiction to proceed on the previous misdemeanor citation for the same DUI offense. Id. at 441-42, 819 P.2d at 1027-28. Concluding the State and city must be considered a single entity in the context presented, this court explained the State could have avoided the unintended result of having two open cases by securing the dismissal of the city court charges. Id. at 442-43, 819 P.2d at 1028-29. Consequently, in Hardin, the Court treated the supervening indictment as coexisting with, and not necessarily replacing, the previous charges.