MARSHA BRENDA UNGER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court reversed the trial court's order imposing a prison sentence months after probation was imposed, holding that resentencing based on alleged misrepresentation of prior record violated double jeopardy protections absent a valid waiver.
A trial court violates a defendant's double jeopardy rights by resentencing months after imposing probation based on alleged misrepresentation of prior record without a valid waiver of those rights.
[1] Resentencing a defendant months after initial sentencing based on alleged misrepresentation of prior record violates double jeopardy protections absent a valid waiver of…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Such action has been held to be a violation of a defendant's federal and state constitutional rights not to twice be placed in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.”
Court explaining that resentencing based on alleged misrepresentation violates double jeopardy protections under Katz v. State.
The trial court placed appellant on probation. Months later, upon the state's motion, the court set aside the probation order and imposed a prison sen…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Double Jeopardy Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the trial court’s order setting aside the appellant’s sentence and remand with directions that the original sentencing order be reinstated.
Months after placing the appellant on probation the trial court, upon motion of the state, set aside the order of probation and sentenced the appellant to a term of imprisonment upon a determination that the appellant had misrepresented her prior record at the previous sentencing hearing. Such action has been held to be a violation of a defendant’s federal and state constitutional rights not to twice be placed in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. Katz v. State, 335 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). The state contends that the defendant here waived her double jeopardy rights during the initial sentencing. Our review of the record, however, fails to reflect such a waiver by appellant. Rather, the record reflects that appellant’s participation in the discussion between the court and counsel was limited to an affirmation of counsel’s response to an inquiry about restitution in a previous case in New Jersey. The record is also far from clear that the appellant herself either intended any misrepresentation about her prior record, or understood that her failure to furnish more detailed and precise information could result in a harsher sentence. We simply find an inadequate evidentiary basis to support a waiver of appellant’s double jeopardy rights.
ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and STONE, JJ., concur.