NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
JUREZ ROSHAE WILLIAMS, )
)
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2D14-4399
)
STATE OF FLORIDA, )
)
Appellee. )
)
Opinion filed July 6, 2016.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for
Hillsborough County; Ashley Moody,
Judge.
Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender,
and Cynthia J. Dodge, Assistant Public
Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,
Tallahassee, and Jeffrey H. Siegal
Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for
Appellee.
CRENSHAW, Judge.
After a jury found Jurez Roshae Williams guilty of robbery, the trial court
originally sentenced him to fifteen years' imprisonment as both a prison releasee
reoffender (PRR) and a habitual felony offender (HFO), followed by five years' probation
as an HFO. On direct appeal this court reversed Williams' sentence and remanded for
resentencing after determining that the sentence was illegal because "the incarcerative
portions of the [PRR and HFO] sentences [were] the same." Williams v. State, 129 So.
3d 453, 455 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); see also Johnson v. State, 927 So. 2d 251, 252 (Fla.
2d DCA 2006). The trial court ultimately resentenced Williams as an HFO to fifteen
years and one day in prison followed by four years and 364 days of probation with a
concurrent fifteen-year mandatory minimum prison term as a PRR. Citing Stark v.
State, 27 So. 3d 206 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010), Williams now argues his latest sentence
violates double jeopardy because the trial court increased the incarcerative portion of
his sentence by one day after he began serving it. We agree.
"Increasing a sentence after the defendant has begun serving it violates
the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy." Stark, 27 So. 3d at 208. The
State argues that this court should affirm because Williams' trial counsel agreed with the
new sentence and because "[Williams] is still serving the same amount of time ordered
by the court." Contrary to the State's suggestion, this double jeopardy violation was not
waived or unpreserved as Williams raised the error in a motion to correct sentence
which was deemed denied when it was not ruled on within sixty days. Cf. Pate v. State,
908 So. 2d 613, 614 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (explaining that increasing a sentence after a
defendant has begun serving it violates double jeopardy "even if the original sentence
was illegal or otherwise erroneous and the correction conforms to applicable law or to
the court's and parties' intentions at sentencing"). Accordingly, we reverse Williams'
new sentence and remand for another resentencing. See Stark, 27 So. 3d at 208-09.
Reversed and remanded.
KHOUZAM and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
-2-