Indalesio L. Basaldua v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Indalesio L. Basaldua v. State

199 So. 3d 1129, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13917, 2016 WL 4962830

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 16, 2016

Docket5D16-722

StatusPublished

This text of 199 So. 3d 1129 (Indalesio L. Basaldua v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Indalesio L. Basaldua v. State, 199 So. 3d 1129, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13917, 2016 WL 4962830 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Indalesio Basaldua appeals his sentence for driving while license suspended. He argues, and the State properly concedes, that the trial court violated the prohibition against double jeopardy by resentencing him to prison after he had already served the entirety of his county jail sentence on the charge. 1 Accordingly, we vacate Ba-saldua’s sentence on the charge of driving while license suspended and remand for the trial court to reinstate his sentence of time served. 2 See Stallings v. State, 182 So.3d 786, 787 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (“Once a sentence has already been served, even if it is an illegal sentence or an invalid sentence, the trial court loses jurisdiction and violates the Double Jeopardy Clause by reasserting jurisdiction and resentencing the defendant to an increased sentence.” (quoting Maybin v. State, 884 So.2d 1174, 1175 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004))).

Sentence VACATED; REMANDED for resentencing.

SAWAYA, BERGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.

1

. Basaldua’s double jeopardy claim is properly raised for the first time on appeal. See Vasquez v. State, 778 So.2d 1068, 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) ("A violation of double jeopardy constitutes fundamental error which may be raised for the first time on appeal." (citing Johnson v. State, 747 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999))).

2

. Basaldua does not challenge, and this opinion does not effect, the concurrent 60-month sentences he received on the charges of aggravated fleeing or attempting to elude and grand theft.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Indalesio Basaldua appeals his sentence for driving while license suspended. He argues, and the State properly concedes, that the trial court violated the prohibition against double jeopardy by resentencing him to prison after he had already served the entirety of his county jail sentence on the charge. 1 Accordingly, we vacate Ba-saldua’s sentence on the charge of driving while license suspended and remand for the trial court to reinstate his sentence of time served. 2 See Stallings v. State, 182 So.3d 786, 787 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (“Once a sentence has already been served, even if it is an illegal sentence or an invalid sentence, the trial court loses jurisdiction and violates the Double Jeopardy Clause by reasserting jurisdiction and resentencing the defendant to an increased sentence.” (quoting Maybin v. State, 884 So.2d 1174, 1175 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004))).

Sentence VACATED; REMANDED for resentencing.

SAWAYA, BERGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.

1

. Basaldua’s double jeopardy claim is properly raised for the first time on appeal. See Vasquez v. State, 778 So.2d 1068, 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) ("A violation of double jeopardy constitutes fundamental error which may be raised for the first time on appeal." (citing Johnson v. State, 747 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999))).

2

. Basaldua does not challenge, and this opinion does not effect, the concurrent 60-month sentences he received on the charges of aggravated fleeing or attempting to elude and grand theft.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 So. 3d 1129, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13917, 2016 WL 4962830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/indalesio-l-basaldua-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack