Really it is not important whether it was prison or jail, or whether it was probation or parole. But I opted for two prison sentences because of the serious nature of the offense and the need to protect the community from somebody who was repeating. These omissions or mistakes were not-are not highly significant in regard to what the court's determination was as to what sentence would be appropriate, and they're not highly significant to the reasons that the court had for giving the mandatory, giving, rather, the maximum sentences for each of the two counts. The United States Constitution and the Wisconsin Constitution protect a defendant from being punished twice for the same offense. In this case, we are concerned with the third type of protection.
Multiplicity is defined as the charging of a single criminal offense in more than one count.
An individual's constitutional right to be protected from double jeopardy is a question of law, which we review de novo. Claims of multiplicity are analyzed using a two-part test. Under the first part, we decide whether the charged offenses are identical in law and fact. If they are, the charges are multiplicious. See id. at 179.