S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). ¶ 13. Under Mississippi Code Annotated section 97-3-95(1)(a) (Rev. 2014), “[a] person is guilty of sexual battery if he or she engages in sexual penetration with ... [a]nother person without his or her consent[.]” To prove that someone is guilty of burglary, there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed a “breaking and entering [of a] dwelling house ... with the intent to commit some crime therein[.]” Miss.Code Ann. § 97-17-23(1) (Rev. 2014). Burglary and sexual battery require proof of different facts. Consequently, even if the prosecution had pursued the sexual-battery charge, Stamps would not have been sub jected to double jeopardy because he pled guilty to burglary. See also Norman v. State, 543 So.2d 1163, 1164 (Miss.1989) (<HOLDING>). There is no merit to this issue. III.
holding that fact of prior conviction is not subject to booker requirements that convictions cannot be severed from their essential components including the integral facts such as the statutory violation and date of offense and that these facts are inherent to convictions not extraneous to them holding that no doublejeopardy violation results from convictions for rape and burglary even where both charges arose from a common set of facts holding that prior convictions could not be severed from their essential components and these components include integral facts such as the statutory violation and date of offense therefore these facts were inherent to convictions not extraneous to them holding that rule 54b certification was inappropriate where appeal and remaining counterclaim both arose from a contract dispute regarding moneys due from alleged unauthorized repairs holding that where a contract results from joint efforts of attorneys for both sides contract should not be construed against either party