REGINALD M. GREENWICH, 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.
Reginald Greenwich appealed his judgment and sentence for misdemeanor convictions, arguing the written judgment failed to reflect all his convictions and that the trial court improperly increased his sentence after he had begun serving it. The court agreed on both points and reversed and remanded, directing the trial court to correct the judgment and reimpose the original sentence.
The court held that the judgment must be corrected to accurately reflect Greenwich's convictions on all four counts, including the trespass and assault convictions for which he received time served. The court also held that resentencing Greenwich to a greater term after he had begun serving violated double jeopardy principles and was improper.
[1] A written judgment and sentence must accurately reflect all convictions for which a defendant was sentenced.
[2] A trial court errs by increasing a defendant's sentence after the defendant has begun serving it, as such an enhancement violates double jeopardy principles.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the judgment fails to accurately reflect his convictions, and that the trial court erred by increasing his sentence after he had begun serving it”
States the core legal errors on appeal that the court agreed with
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGreenwich was convicted by jury of misdemeanor domestic violence battery, trespass in a structure, battery, and assault. At the initial sentencing hea…
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 Principles cases and more on FLexlaw
ON CONCESSION OF ERROR
Reginald M. Greenwich appeals his judgment and sentence. He argues that *610the judgment fails to accurately reflect his convictions, and that the trial court erred by increasing his sentence after he had begun serving it. We agree, and remand with directions to correct the judgment and to impose the original sentence.
Greenwich was charged with several felonies. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of the misdemeanor offenses of domestic violence battery, trespass in a structure, battery, and assault. At the sentencing hearing held on December 16, 2009, Greenwich was sentenced to time served for the trespass and assault convictions and to concurrent terms of 364 days in the county jail on each of the battery charges. However, the written judgment and sentence fails to reflect either the trespass or assault convictions.1
For reasons not apparent from the record, a second sentencing hearing was conducted on January 22, 2010. At the conclusion of that hearing and over Greenwich’s objection, the trial court re-sentenced him to consecutive terms of one year in the county jail on each of the battery charges, followed by two six-month terms of probation to be served consecutively to the jail sentences for the two remaining misdemeanors. The net result of the resentencing was a sentence enhanced from one year in the county jail to two years in the county jail followed by a year of probation.
On appeal, Greenwich contends, and the State properly concedes, two errors in the sentencing process. First, the original judgment erroneously indicated that the court had set aside the trespass and assault convictions. In fact, Greenwich was sentenced to time served on both those counts. On remand, the judgment should be corrected accordingly. Second, the court erred when it resentenced Greenwich to a greater term, as he had begun serving his sentence and the imposition of a harsher sentence violates double jeopardy principles. See Engram v. State, 853 So.2d 1123, 1124 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).
For these reasons, on remand, the trial court shall correct its judgment to reflect that Greenwich received time served for the trespass and assault convictions and reimpose the sentences orally pronounced for the remaining two charges.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ORFINGER, TORPY and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.