Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Double Jeopardy Clause 'only proscribes resentencing where the defendant has developed a legitimate expectation of finality in his original sentence." Id. 18 (quoting Pasquarille v. United States, 130 F.3d 1220, 1222 (6th Cir.1997)); see also, United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 137-39, 101 S.Ct. 426, 66 L.Ed.2d 328 (1980); Warnick v. Booher, 425 F.3d 842, 847 (10th Cir.2005). 137 While this court has not yet considered whether the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents the correction of a clerical error that amends a eriminal sentence, other jurisdictions have done so and have held that the correction does not violate principles of double jeopardy when there is no legitimate expectation of finality in the sentence. See Gallinat v. State, 941 So.2d 1237, 1238-42 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2006)(<HOLDING>); People v. Minaya, 54 N.Y.2d 360, 445 N.Y.S.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that the expectation of finality and tranquility is an interest protected by the prohibition on double jeopardy (B) holding that correction of trial courts miscalculation giving credit to defendant for time not actually served did not violate double jeopardy because defendant had no legitimate expectation of finality (C) holding that defendant did not have standing to raise facial challenge to validity of aggravated assault statutes for their risk of creating double jeopardy grounds because he himself was not charged in way that created double jeopardy (D) holding that correction of sentence to conform with plea agreement did not violate double jeopardy because the defendant had no legitimate expectation of finality (E) holding that a defendant is not entitled to credit for time served as a condition of probation
Output (English): holding that correction of sentence to conform with plea agreement did not violate double jeopardy because the defendant had no legitimate expectation of finality