State v. Melancon, 2014 UT App 260, 339 P.3d 151 (Nov. 14, 2014) 

The Shondel doctrine requires the lesser of sentences when two crimes impose “disparate penalties for identical conduct [same elements for two different crimes].” State v. Williams, 2007 UT 98, ¶ 12. In this arson case, defendant argued that the elements of solicitation and accomplice liability are one in the same. The court disagreed, holding that accomplice liability is not a crime in itself, but an extension of liability for the underlying crime. Therefore, , one cannot be convicted of accomplice liability without the completion of the underlying crime, whereas one can be convicted of solicitation without completion of the underlying crime. “[T]he accomplice-liability and criminal-solicitation statutes do not require proof of the same elements and [] the Shondel doctrine is therefore inapplicable.”