Aaron M. Annatone v. State
198 So. 3d 1031
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Aaron Annatone and co-defendants faced multiple burglary/theft charges and entered negotiated pleas resolving all cases.
- Plea agreements included joint-and-several restitution to victims; parties agreed restitution for a particular count was $45,000.
- During Appellant’s plea colloquy the prosecutor and defense counsel stated the agreed restitution was $45,000; the written plea form erroneously listed $4,500.
- At sentencing the judge orally announced restitution as $4,500 (the clerical error), then immediately recessed and later acknowledged the discrepancy while taking the brother’s plea.
- One week after the plea/sentencing hearing the trial court entered a written restitution order for $45,000.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether increasing restitution from $4,500 (oral sentence) to $45,000 (written order) after sentencing violates double jeopardy | Increase violated double jeopardy because sentence had been imposed and service begun | No double jeopardy; the higher amount reflected the parties’ agreed plea term and the oral misstatement was clerical | Court affirmed: no double jeopardy violation because defendant had no legitimate expectation of finality in the incorrect oral restitution amount when the court sought to impose the agreed $45,000 |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 2003) (general rule: sentence cannot be increased after defendant begins to serve it)
- Dunbar v. State, 89 So. 3d 901 (Fla. 2012) (legitimacy of expectation of finality controls double jeopardy inquiry in sentencing)
- United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117 (1980) (double jeopardy and sentencing finality principles)
- State v. Rodrigues, 218 P.3d 610 (Utah 2009) (no double jeopardy when corrected restitution reflects plea agreement and original order misstated agreed amount)