charges. The penalties were sought under the same case number and were assigned to the same judge. See State ex rel. Schwartz v. Kennedy, 120 N.M. 619, 626, 904 P.2d 1044, 1051 (1995) (discussing characteristics of separate proceedings). Therefore, it is clear that the forfeiture proceeding was initiated prior to the occurrence of any event that might have triggered the attachment of jeopardy, including entry of judgment and sentence on the plea. {26} In addition, the policies underlying the prohibition against double jeopardy were not implicated in this ease. Defendant Esparza had clear notice of the dual penalties facing him and therefore had no expectation of finality upon the district court’s acceptance of his plea. See Angel, 2002-NMSC-025, ¶ 15, 132 N.M. 501, 51 P.3d 1155 (<HOLDING>). The State did not receive multiple
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 holding that although double jeopardy is an appropriate subject for a writ of prohibition the court in which the petition is filed may in its discretion  decline to address the merits of the petition on grounds that there is an adequate remedy by appeal 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 where a plea agreement is vacated the parties can be returned to their original position without violating the prohibition against double jeopardy recognizing that the expectation of finality and tranquility is an interest protected by the prohibition on double jeopardy