the defendant under a correct application of the law. We therefore vacate the judgment of conviction for concealing identity, vacate both sentences as imposed, and remand to the trial court for resentencing on the conviction of armed robbery, under circumstances where identity was concealed." Morris, 108 Wis. 2d at 290 n.5 (quoting Robinson, 102 Wis. 2d at 356). ¶ 23. Similarly, in Upchurch, 101 Wis. 2d 329, we concluded that separate, consecutive one-year sentences for possession of a controlled substance and habitual criminality violated double jeopardy, because the repeater statute was a penalty enhancer, not a separate offense. Id. at 335. We remanded for resen-tencing on the single, enhanced offense in order not to frustrate the intent of the original sentence. Id. at 336 (<HOLDING>). ¶ 24. Also, in Ronzani, 24 Wis. 2d 512, the
holding that the petitioner could not show prejudice because the essence of the mitigation evidence that he argued was before the judge through the presentence investigation report and his mental health experts testimony and the judge referred to it specifically in the sentencing order further the same judge and the florida supreme court held that the mitigation evidence would not have changed the result holding that in order to show prejudice defendant must demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsels unprofessional errors the result of the proceeding would have been different holding that misleading testimony regarding the purpose of a proceeding did not warrant inquiry into the result of the proceeding holding that a contrary result would tend to make the sentencing proceeding a game wherein a misstatement by the trial judge would result in a windfall to the defendant holding that a defendant was not entitled to a relief under section 2255 when he asserted that the sentencing judge who was not the trial judge was influenced by the sentence imposed by the trial judge on a codefendant