enhanced sentence provisions depending on the consequences, LaBounty, 2005 VT 124, ¶ 7, the act prohibited by the BWI statute is defined solely by the operation of a vessel while intoxicated, with enhanced sentencing provisions depending on the consequences. Because death result ing is not included in the actus reus — the criminalized conduct of the offense — defendant’s second conviction cannot stand. ¶ 57. The trial court sentenced defendant to four to five years on each count, suspending all but three years to serve on each count, with the sentences to run consecutively. As in LaBounty, we recognize here that the trial court sentenced defendant on the first count based on harm to only one victim. See id. ¶ 10; see also State v. Simpson, 160 Vt. 220, 226-27, 627 A.2d 346, 350 (1993) (<HOLDING>). We therefore reverse defendant’s second
holding that defendant cannot successfully challenge legal sentence or attack underlying conviction through motion for sentence reconsideration holding that remand for resentencing is appropriate when sentence for reversed conviction appears to have influenced trial courts sentence for the affirmed conviction holding remand for a new trial to be the appropriate remedy when conviction was based on a general jury verdict encompassing both a constitutional and an unconstitutional theory of conviction holding that consideration of original sentence on remand for resentencing was inapplicable when original sentences were void holding that where a conviction survives an apprendi challenge under plain error review a sentence appropriate for that conviction also survives