Westover v. StateWestover v. State
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Lauren Hafner Sewell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
PARKER, Judge.
Westover alleges that the trial court illegally enhanced his sentence at a second resentencing hearing held after remand from this court. We agree and reverse.
On February 7, 1986, this court affirmed Westover‘s convictions for first degree arson, burning to defraud, and insurance fraud but reversed the trial court‘s imposition of probation. We remanded the case solely for resentencing because the trial court had previously departed downward from the recommended guidelines sentence without providing written reasons.1
An increase in a lawful sentence is expressly prohibited grounded upon the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution. Troupe v. Rowe, 283 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1973). Once a defendant begins to serve his sentence, the trial court has no authority to impose a harsher sentence. Daniels v. State, 513 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Hinton v. State, 446 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
The trial court‘s action in increasing its previously imposed lawful sentence of fifteen years probation to thirty years probation violated Westover‘s constitutional right against double jeopardy. Daniels; Hinton.
Accordingly, we reverse Westover‘s thirty year sentence of probation and remand this case with instructions that the trial
RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.