Const. amend. V. "The Double Jeopardy Clause embodies three separate protections: (1) protection against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, (2) protection against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, and (8) protection against multiple punishments for the same offense." Bernat v. Allphin, 2005 UT 1, ¶ 11, 106 P.3d 707. Here, Mr. Rodrigues argues that the trial court violated his protection against multiple punishments for the same offense when it in essence resentenced him by amending and increasing the original order of restitution. However, "resentencing per se does not implicate the double jeopardy protection from multiple punishments." State v. Maguire, 1999 UT App 45, ¶ 11, 975 P.2d 476. Rather, "t 90, 429 N.E.2d 1161, 1163-64 (1981)(<HOLDING>). We find the Minaya opinion particularly
holding that correction of sentence to conform with plea agreement did not violate double jeopardy because the defendant had no legitimate expectation of finality 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 recognizing that the expectation of finality and tranquility is an interest protected by the prohibition on double jeopardy holding that a defendants acceptance of sentencing pursuant to a bargained for plea agreement waives any double jeopardy violations 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