No, why would you think otherwise? If it can be proven (under the appropriate standard of evidence) that you did X but not Y, then it's still been proven that you did X and will be sentenced accordingly. It also doesn't necessarily mean you didn't do Y (though it obviously can as well), just that the prosecution didn't meet its burden of proof. And being charged with several things you weren't proven to have done doesn't mean you weren't found guilty of everything else and it doesn't mean you're entitled to a retrial on just the things you were, y'know, already found guilty of doing.
There's more about bringing all claims in one proceeding, which gets into issues of double jeopardy and preclusion but I think you get the idea.