Postconviction, Czarnecki argued for the first time that his sexual assault convictions were multiplicitous and violative of the double jeopardy provisions of the state and federal constitutions. The circuit court rejected Czarnecki's double jeopardy claim on the merits and also held that it was untimely because Czarnecki did not raise it before entering his no contest pleas. The State renews on appeal its claim that Czarnecki waived his double jeopardy claim by not raising it before entering his no contest pleas. We decline the State's invitation to dispose of this appeal on waiver grounds, and we turn to the merits of Czarnecki's double jeopardy argument. The double jeopardy provisions of the state and federal constitutions protect a defendant from being punished twice for the same offense.
Multiplicitous charges occur when a single criminal offense is charged in more than one count.
We first address whether the charged offenses are identical in fact. Because Czarnecki entered no contest pleas, there is no evidentiary record of his criminal activity. Therefore, we turn to the criminal complaint to determine if the offenses are identical in fact. An offense is not significantly different in fact unless the defendant's acts are separated in time, of a significantly different nature or required a separate volitional act. Czarnecki contends that because his conduct occurred over a short period of time, the charges were multiplicitous under Hirsch .