JAMES A. HODGES, 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.
A defendant cannot receive a longer sentence after retrial than originally imposed unless new conduct justifies it.
Hodges was convicted of burglary and petit theft, sentenced, appealed, and retried. On retrial, he received a longer sentence for petit theft than ori…
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 North Carolina V. Pearce cases and more on FLexlaw
James A. Hodges (Hodges) appeals his convictions and the sentences imposed after a jury found him guilty of burglary of a dwelling and petit theft. We affirm the convictions but vacate the sentence imposed for petit theft.
Hodges was initially convicted of the instant charges following a jury trial in 1997. He was then sentenced to fifteen years in prison as an habitual offender on the burglary charge with a concurrent sixty day sentence on the petit theft charge. He was awarded sixty days credit on the petit theft charge thereby fully satisfying that sentence. On appeal, this court reversed and remanded the matter for a new trial. See Hodges v. State, 727 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). On retrial, Hodges was again convicted of both charges and was resentenced to fifteen years in prison as an habitual offender on the burglary charge with a sixty day consecutive sentence for the. petit theft charge.
Having reviewed the record, we affirm the convictions. We do, however, vacate his sentence for petit theft. After retrial, a defendant may not receive a longer sentence than was originally imposed, unless he or she engaged in identifiable conduct since the date of the original sentencing, justifying the greater sentence. See North Carolina v. Pearce, 895 U.S. 711 (1969); Blackshear v. State, 531 So. 2d 956 (Fla.1988). Since Hodges had fully satisfied his petit theft sentence, a sentence that equaled the statutory maximum, the court had no power to amend or increase it. Sneed v. State, 749 So. 2d 545, 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Palmer v. State, 182 So. 2d 625, 626 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966).
Accordingly, we affirm Hodges’ convictions but vacate his petit theft sentence.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.
COBB and SHARP, W., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Jimenez, 173 So. 3d 1020 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…n if it is an illegal or invalid sentence, a trial court may not increase or amend the sentence, as this would violate a defendant’s double jeopardy rights. See Clark, 72 So. 3d at 226, n. 2. See, e.g., Ellis, 913 So. 2d at 1256-57; Hodges v. State, 780 So. 2d 967, 968 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Sneed, 749 So. 2d at 546. Accordingly, because the initial sentence that included Counts 6 and 7 had already been served at the time of resen-tencing, the trial court did not have the power on February 8, 2008 to resentence…
Authorities Cited
- Blackshear v. State, 531 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1988)
- Sneed v. State, 749 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Freeman v. State, 182 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)
- Hodges v. State, 727 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)