Please summarize the below for me in paragraph format:

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA *** FILED *** MARICOPA COUNTY 03/11/2006 03/08/2006 CLERK OF THE COURT FORM R000D THE HONORABLE LOUIS ARANETA L. Sheehan Deputy CR 2005 - 019252 FILED: _________________________ STATE OF ARIZONA LINNETTE R FLANIGAN v. JESUS (A) JASON D LAMM ADOLFO (B) ALAN C KUFFNER ROBERT (C) TIMOTHY J AGAN OCI-CCC VICTIM SERVICES DIV-CA-CCC STATUS CONFERENCE State's Attorney: Linnette Flanigan Co-Defendant Jesus' Attorney: Jason Lamm Co-Defendant Adolfo's Attorney Alan Kuffner Co-Defendant Robert's Attorney: Tim Agan Interpreter: Ramon Delgadillo Court Reporter: Kathy Braley Let the record reflect co-defendants Jesus and Adolfo are present and represented by above-named counsel. Co-defendant Robert is not present but is represented by above-named counsel. Co-defendant Jesus is assisted by Ramon Delgadillo of the Office of Court Interpreter. Counsel for the State requests the issuance of a Bench Warrant as to co-defendant Robert. IT IS ORDERED denying the State's request at this time due to the fact that it is unclear as to whether the defendant was forewarned that a failure to appear for this conference may result in a Bench Warrant. In the event Robert fails to appear for the Firm Trial on March 20, 2006, a Bench Warrant may issue. 150 The Motions to Sever filed individually by counsel for co-defendants Jesus and Adolfo are argued to the Court. The Court has considered the pleadings and arguments presented. The Court notes that all three co-defendants are charged as to counts 1 through 8 which include four counts of aggravated assault and four counts of kidnapping. Co-defendant Jesus is accused as a single defendant as to count 9, misconduct involving body armor. The Court agrees with the State that the defendants have been charged under an accomplice theory with assisting each other in the commission of the eight counts described above. The Court finds that under Rule 13.4(b), where the defendants would normally be entitled to severance as a right, there is evidence that would be admissible under the Rules of Evidence against all three defendants if the offenses were tried separately. Therefore, the defendants are not entitled to severance as a matter if right. The State will not present the statements of any defendant in its case in chief. The Court finds that the defendants have failed to show that the defendants would be substantially prejudiced in their respective claims or defenses of mere presence or self-defense because such defenses are not mutually antagonistic. That the defenses may be slightly inconsistent does not require severance. The conduct of each of the other two defendants as to a single defendant continues to remain relevant for purposes of admissible evidence on the accomplice theory by the State. However, as to the evidence that Jesus was wearing body armor, the Court finds that such evidence would not be admissible against the other two defendants. The Court finds that such evidence is prejudicial to the other two co-defendants for the purposes of any claim of mere presence or lack of intent of knowledge. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that count 9, misconduct involving body armor, shall be severed from the other counts to be tried against Jesus. IT IS ORDERED affirming the Firm Trial set for March 20, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. in this Division. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED affirming prior custody orders as to co-defendants Jesus and Adolfo. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED affirming prior release orders as to co-defendant Robert. Matter concludes.