decision came down. In the present case, however, although the events which gave rise to the prosecution occurred before the final opinion and the mandate issued in Delgado, the conviction under review was not final until after August 24, 2000. III. Appellant argues that his burglary conviction should be reversed because the jury might have convicted him on the theory that he remained in the store, having decided to take the money, despite concluding that he did not remain in the store surreptitiously. A conviction that rests on alternative bases, one of which is legally inadequate, cannot be upheld, if a general verdict makes it impossible to say with certainty that the jury convicted under a theory that was legally adequate. See Mackerley v. State, 777 So.2d 969, 969 (Fla.2001) (<HOLDING>). Basic requirements of due process require
holding that where both firstdegree and felony murder were possible bases for a murder conviction a jury instruction that suggested the jury could rely on felony murder as the predicate offense for a conviction for conspiracy to commit murder was improper because under arizona law a conviction for conspiracy to commit firstdegree murder requires a specific intent to kill holding that reversal of conviction for felony murder was required where jury failed to find the defendant guilty of the underlying felony as essential element of the felony murder offense holding that first and seconddegree intentional murder verdicts are consistent with a felony murder verdict because lack of intent is not an element of seconddegree felony murder holding error is not harmless when the accused is convicted of firstdegree murder on a general verdict after a trial in which premeditation and felony murder theories are espoused if the felony underlying the felony murder charge is based on a legally unsupportable theory holding constitutional arizonas scheme of providing general verdicts for firstdegree murder based on either premeditation or felony murder without requiring jury unanimity