State v. Jacqueline R. Robinson, 847 N.W.2d 352

Robinson was arrested January 19, 2011 on multiple Milwaukee County charges including possession of narcotic drugs and battery; two days later she pled guilty to all counts.
She had prior Waukesha County convictions from 2008; those sentences were read-in for probation violations with no jail time originally imposed then.
In May 2011, Milwaukee County Circuit Court sentenced Robinson on three counts; the court intended concurrent sentences with the Waukesha County terms.
The following day, the court sua sponte recalled the case, due to a mistaken understanding of the Waukesha sentences, and resentenced Robinson to different terms.
The resentencing increased Counts Two and Three by nine months to a total of 69 months, while Count One remained at 42 months, but all sentences were to run concurrent with the Waukesha terms.
Robinson filed a postconviction motion arguing the second sentencing violated double jeopardy; the circuit court and court of appeals rejected that claim, relying on DiFrancesco and Burt/Gruetzmacher line of cases.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether double jeopardy was violated by resentencing	Robinson: legitimate finality in original sentence; resentencing violated double jeopardy	State: no legitimate expectation of finality; correction appropriate	No; resentencing permissible under DiFrancesco framework
Whether Robinson had a legitimate expectation of finality	Robinson maintained finality after initial sentence	State argues circumstances undermine finality under Jones factors	Robinson did not have a legitimate finality expectation given record and timing
Application of Jones/Gruetzmacher factors to rescue or condemn the resentencing	Record supports an error in original sentence and need to correct	Record demonstrates misapprehension corrected promptly	Factors weighed in favor of allowing correction; no double jeopardy violation

In re DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117 (U.S. 1980) (legitimate expectation of finality governs whether increases violate double jeopardy)
State v. Burt, 237 Wis.2d 610 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000) (same-day correction of sentencing permitted when due to error of speech and no conviction entered)
State v. Gruetzmacher, 271 Wis.2d 585 (Wis. 2004) (applies DiFrancesco framework; no immutable rule against modifying sentences after start of confinement)
State v. Willet, 238 Wis.2d 621 (Wis. 2000) (legitimate finality depends on timing and the record; four-month gap barred modification)
State v. Jones, 257 Wis.2d 163 (Wis. App. 2002) (non-exhaustive factors to assess legitimate expectation of finality; Jones framework adopted in Gruetzmacher)
Scott v. State, 64 Wis.2d 54 (Wis. 1974) (reflection doctrine; cannot increase sentence to conform to unspoken intent absent record support)
State v. Foellmi, 57 Wis.2d 572 (Wis. 1973) (new factors may justify modification; not based on mere reflection)
Hayes v. State, 46 Wis.2d 93 (Wis. 1970) (early rule permitting post-sentence modification; later narrowed by reflection doctrine and subsequent cases)
State v. North, 91 Wis.2d 507 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979) (double jeopardy concerns arise when attempting to modify a sentence after it has begun)