Chaka R. Dillon appeals from an order in Washington County retaining jurisdiction over a case which previously had been consolidated and disposed of in another case in Milwaukee County. Dillon argues that the retention of jurisdiction subjects him to double jeopardy. Because we conclude that the consolidation statute, § 971.09, Stats., 1991-92,1 was *43not followed in Milwaukee County, we conclude that the court was not required by statute to dismiss the Washington County charges. We also conclude that the further prosecution in Washington County does not violate the double jeopardy clauses of the Wisconsin or United States Constitutions. Accordingly, we affirm.
For purposes of this appeal the facts are not disputed, although some facts are unclear. The Washington County District Attorney's Office filed a complaint against Dillon alleging him to be party to the crime of burglary and party to the crime of criminal damage to property, both felonies. The facts alleged, which formed the basis of the complaint, were that Dillon and five other men broke into the secured garage of an apartment building in West Bend on July 1,1991. There the men smashed the windows of several cars. The men entered some of the cars, disrupting the contents and stealing several items, including a car stereo, a dictaphone, a citizen's band radio and a camera. The particular facts supporting the burglary were the entry of the locked garage with the intent to steal. The information filed on December 16, 1991 charged the same two crimes.
Dillon had also been charged with one felony count of party to the crime of burglary in Milwaukee County. On January 24, 1992, the Milwaukee County court apparently received and accepted: (1) Dillon's application for consolidation of the Washington and Milwaukee County charges; (2) the Washington County District Attorney's consent to consolidation; and (3) the stipulated motion and order consolidating *44felony cases in Milwaukee County signed by Dillon's counsel and the Milwaukee County District Attorney.2
On June 15, 1992, Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Arlene D. Connors accepted Dillon's plea of no contest to an amended charge of theft as party to the crime in violation of §§ 943.20(l)(a), (3)(a), and 939.05, Stats., related to the Milwaukee County charge. The court also stated: "On further motion of the State, the court orders the Washington County case, which is consolidated herein, amended to misdemeanor Entry into Locked Vehicle in violation of Wisconsin Statute section 943.11." Presumably these amendments and no contest pleas were made in accordance with a plea bargain between Dillon and the Milwaukee County District Attorney.
The record is barren of any reference to which count Judge Connors ordered amended in the Washington County case. Dillon asserts on appeal that the court amended count one — the felony of party to the crime of burglary. Assuming this is so, there is nothing in the record regarding the disposition of the second felony count — criminal damage to property. However, Dillon seems to assume that it was dismissed. The State makes no statement on which count was amended or the disposition of the remaining count.
*45When the Washington County District Attorney's Office learned of Dillon's plea bargain and conviction, it apparently objected to the court in Washington County.3 Washington County Judge Leo F. Schlaefer conducted a hearing and by order dated December 15, 1993 determined that Washington County retained jurisdiction of Dillon's case.4 Dillon filed for leave to appeal this nonfinal order, which this court granted by order dated December 30,1993.
The issue on appeal is whether the Washington County court erred by concluding that it could retain jurisdiction. Dillon argues that the retention of jurisdiction violates his right to be free from double jeopardy. The State argues that the problem is not constitutional but statutory: Milwaukee County failed to follow § 971.09, Stats., and therefore Washington County retained jurisdiction for the State's pursuit of the Washington County charges. In the alternative, the State argues that Dillon is not subject to double jeopardy because the Washington County charges are not the same in law or fact as the conviction in Milwaukee County.
We first address whether the Washington County court has authority, in light of § 971.09, Stats., to *46retain jurisdiction after the Washington County District Attorney consented to consolidation in another county. This question involves the interpretation of § 971.09, the statute governing the consolidation of cases, which we resolve de novo. See State v. Eichman, 155 Wis. 2d 552, 560, 456 N.W.2d 143, 146 (1990).
Under § 971.09, STATS.,5 the consolidation of criminal charges pending in more than one county is not *47automatic and requires the initiative of the accused. Pulaski v. State, 23 Wis. 2d 138, 147, 126 N.W.2d 625, 631 (interpreting § 956.01(13), Stats., 1963, the predecessor of § 971.09), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 862 (1964). To begin the consolidation process, the defendant submits an application to the district attorney of the county in which he or she is in custody. Section 971.09(1). In the application, the accused must: (1) describe all of the crimes pending that he or she wishes to consolidate; (2) name the county in which each crime was committed; and (3) admit to each described crime. Id. As stated in our description of the facts, the appellate record does not contain Dillon's application for consolidation. Because the State does not contend otherwise, we will assume that Dillon's application complied with these requirements.
Upon receipt of the application, the district attorney of the county in custody (Milwaukee, in this case) prepares an information charging all of the admitted *48crimes. See § 971.09(2), STATS.6 He or she then forwards a copy of the information and a statement that the defendant applied for consolidation to the district attorney of any other county in which the defendant admitted crimes (Washington in this case). See id. Upon receipt of the proposed information, it is within that district attorney's discretion whether or not to consent to the consolidation. Pulaski, 23 Wis. 2d at 147, 126 N.W.2d at 631; see also § 971.09(2). Here the record shows that the Washington County District Attorney consented to consolidation of the burglary and criminal damage to property charges.
When the district attorney of the custodial county receives the consent, the statute authorizes him or her to file the information in his or her county. See § 971.09(3), Stats. "The defendant then may enter a plea of guilty to all offenses alleged to have been committed in the county where the court is located and to all offenses alleged to have been committed in other counties as to which the district attorney has executed a consent...." Id. (emphasis added).
This is the point at which the record before us departs from the statutory procedure. The Milwaukee County District Attorney requested amendment of the Washington County charges to the misdemeanor of entry of a locked vehicle, which Judge Connors granted. Amendment of the charges from another *49county is not authorized by § 971.09, STATS. The Washington County District Attorney consented to the entry of a guilty plea on specific charges which Dillon had already admitted. The consent does not authorize the Milwaukee County District Attorney to plea bargain with the defendant, nor should there have been a need to. In the application for consolidation, Dillon already should have admitted to the crimes. However, pursuant to the unauthorized plea bargain, Dillon pled to this reduced charge.7 Therefore, Dillon did not plead guilty to the offenses to which the Washington County District Attorney consented, which directly violates § 971.09(3).8
Section 971.09(4), STATS., provides that the court enter judgment based on the plea. The clerk where the plea is made files a copy of the judgment of conviction with the clerk in each, county where a crime covered by *50the plea was committed. See § 971.09(5). This district attorney "shall then move to dismiss any charges covered by the plea of guilty, which are pending against the defendant in his county, and the same shall thereupon be dismissed." See id. (emphasis added).
Section 971.09, Stats., does not authorize the custodial county district attorney to move to dismiss the charges still pending in the county of commission or authorize the custodial county court to dismiss the charges. Instead, § 971.09(5) reserves these actions for the district attorney and court of the county of commission of the crime. Nevertheless, because the charges pending in Washington County were not "charges covered by the plea of guilty," the Washington County District Attorney was not required or even authorized by § 971.09(5) to move to dismiss the charges; nor was Judge Schlaefer required or authorized to dismiss the charges. Therefore, Judge Schlaefer's order acknowledging the retention of jurisdiction over these charges is not barred by the statute.
We next address Dillon's argument that the retention of jurisdiction places him in double jeopardy. Dillon argues that double jeopardy bars the State from relitigating a case because it was disappointed with the disposition in Milwaukee County. We hold that under the recent decision of our supreme court in State v. Kurzawa, 180 Wis. 2d 502, 509 N.W.2d 712, cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 2712 (1994), the second prosecution will not place Dillon in double jeopardy. However, we also discuss the troubling aspect that Dillon's plea bargain with the State in Milwaukee County should be binding upon the State in all counties.
*51Double jeopardy is intended to provide three protections to a defendant: (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 (3) protection against multiple punishments for the same offense. Id. at 515, 509 N.W.2d at 717. We are concerned here with the second protection, commonly referred to as "successive prosecution." See id.
Kurzawa recognized that the United States Supreme Court recently returned to the "same elements" test of Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), for "virtually all double jeopardy questions," including successive prosecution. Kurzawa, 180 Wis. 2d at 509, 509 N.W.2d at 715. Kurzawa adopted the test for Wisconsin as well. Id. at 525, 509 N.W.2d at 722. That test asks whether each offense "requires proof of an additional fact which the other [s] do[ ] not." Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304. This test requires the comparison of the statutory elements, see Kurzawa, 180 Wis. 2d at 515, 509 N.W.2d at 717, here the crimes of burglary, criminal damage to property and entry of a locked vehicle.
It is clear that each of these crimes contains an element that the others do not. Entry of a locked vehicle under § 943.11, STATS., requires that the defendant intentionally enter the locked and enclosed portion or compartment of the vehicle of another.9 See Wis J I — Criminal 1426. Neither burglary under *52§ 943.10(l)(a), STATS., nor criminal damage to property under § 943.01(2)(d), STATS., requires this showing.10 See WlS J I — CRIMINAL 1424, 1400. Burglary requires the intentional entry of a building. See WlS J I — Criminal 1424. Neither entry of a locked vehicle nor criminal damage to property requires this element. Finally, criminal damage to property requires that the defendant cause damage to physical property. See WlS' JI — Criminal 1400. Causing damage to physical property is not an element of entry of a locked vehicle or burglary. Accordingly, the prosecution of all three crimes does not place Dillon in double jeopardy under Kurzawa.
We raise on our own a troubling aspect of this case: that Dillon is now being prosecuted for crimes that he thought were disposed of through the plea bargain in Milwaukee County. We do not know the exact terms of the plea bargain, but we are probably accurate in assuming that Dillon pled no contest to theft and entry of a locked vehicle in Milwaukee County in return for *53the dismissal of the Milwaukee County burglary charge and the burglary and criminal damage to property charges in Washington County.
However, we believe that this situation is governed by our supreme court's discussion of the enforceability of plea agreements involving the similar situation of immunity from prosecution. In Austin v. State, 49 Wis. 2d 727, 735, 183 N.W.2d 56, 60 (1971), our supreme court recognized that plea agreements granting nolle prosequi are enforceable on public policy grounds where the district attorney was acting within his or her authority. In reaching this decision, the court examined cases from other jurisdictions which held the agreements unenforceable. The court recognized that in those cases, "the court ruled the party entering the agreement with the accused had no authority to make the agreement." Id.
Such is the situation here. The Milwaukee County District Attorney did not have authority under § 971.09, STATS., to promise Dillon that the Washington County charges would be dismissed if he pled no contest to the lesser charge in Milwaukee County. Because the Milwaukee County District Attorney did not have authority to enter into this agreement, it is not enforceable against the State in Washington County.
By the Court. — Order affirmed.