BRIAN DAVID LEE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sentencing Enhancement cases and more on FLexlaw
MICKLE, Judge.
Appellant challenges his convictions and sentences imposed following remand from an earlier appeal. While we do not find the prison and probationary terms imposed after appellant’s successful appeal to be impermis-sibly harsher than the original sentences, we do conclude that the imposition of restitution for the first time on remand constituted a prohibited enhancement. Sqe Brooks v. State, 655 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Jones v. State, 590 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Abt v. State, 581 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Morganti v. State, 573 So. 2d 820 (Fla.1991). We therefore reverse the imposition of restitution and remand with instructions for the trial court to vacate that part of the sentence. In all other respects, the convictions and sentences are affirmed.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.
LAWRENCE and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Edmondson v. State, 816 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…of probation. The appellant contends that this constituted the imposition of more harsh sanctions after a successful appeal in violation of due process under North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969), Lee v. State, 710 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), and Womack v. State, 617 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). The appellant further contends that vindictiveness is presumed because the same judge imposed the sentences on remand, and that this presumption was not overcome. In an…
Authorities Cited
- Morganti v. State, 573 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1991)
- Jones v. State, 590 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- ABT v. State, 581 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- State v. Iglesias, 581 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Brooks v. State, 655 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Johnson v. State, 655 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)