In Sulavka v. State, 223 Ariz. 208, 212,13-18, 221 P.3d 1022, 1026 (App. 2009) the Court examined misdemeanor shoplifting by concealment under the first prong of the Derendal test, and determined "the common law crime of larceny is an antecedent of shoplifting by concealment" because the elements of each crime are "sufficiently comparable." See also State v. Superior Court ("Espinosa"), 121 Ariz. 174, 176, 589 P.2d 48, 50 (App. 1978) ("The crime of shoplifting bears a close relationship to a common law crime."). The Sulavka court did not consider the State's argument that shoplifting historically was established by statute rather than common law, because that issue was not properly presented on appeal. See Sulavka, 223 Ariz. at 211 n.2,13, 221 P.3d at 1025 n.2 ("We decline to address the State's contention, mentioned in passing for the first time in its reply brief, that because English Parliament passed a shoplifting statute in 1698, larceny is not a common law antecedent to shoplifting."). In Sulavka, the Court compared common law larceny to shoplifting by concealment pursuant to A.R.S. 13-1805(A)(5) and determined the two offenses shared "substantially similar" elements. 223 Ariz. at 212,15, 221 P.3d at 1026.