State v. Godil

211 So. 3d 356, 2017 WL 728069, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 2530
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 24, 2017·No. Case No. 5D16-488·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The State challenges the sentence imposed in this felony drug case in which the [357]*357trial court withheld adjudication of guilt without placing Appellee on probation in violation of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure B.670. Although Appellee properly concedes error on this point, he nevertheless argues that the judgment must be affirmed because the alteration of the sentence would violate constitutional double jeopardy principles. We reject Appellee’s double jeopardy argument. Because Appel-lee had no legitimate expectation of finality in the sentence, the double jeopardy clause does not bar the correction of the illegal sentence. Dunbar v. State, 89 So.3d 901, 905 (Fla. 2012).

On remand, the trial judge shah either adjudicate Appellee guilty or impose probation.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ORFINGER, TORPY and BERGER, JJ., concur.

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

State v. Godil, 211 So. 3d 356, 2017 WL 728069, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 2530 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

211 So. 3d 356 (State v. Godil) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dunbar v. State
89 So. 3d 901 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2012)