NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

JOSEPH ANTONIO STORY, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D14-3425 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed September 18, 2015. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Daniel L. Perry, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Megan Olson, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kiersten E. Jensen, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

WALLACE, Judge. Joseph A. Story appeals from sentences imposed following the revocation of his community control. We affirm the trial court's order revok ing his community control and affirm the sentence imposed on count three without comment, but we reverse the sentences imposed on counts one and two and remand for correcti on of these sentences.- 2 - Joseph A. Story pleaded guilty to charges of domestic violenc e battery by strangulation, a third-degree felony; domestic violence battery , second or subsequent offense, also a third-degree felony; and aggravated battery wit h a deadly weapon, a second-degree felony. 1 Pursuant to a plea agreement, M r. Story was placed on two yea rs' community control to be followed by three years' probation on e ach count. Later, the State filed an amended affidavit alleging that Mr. Story violated sev eral conditions of his community control. He admitted to the violation of condition t hree, and on this basis, the trial court revoked his community control and sentenced him to 72.075 months in prison on count three and sixty months' prison on counts one and two. Su bsequently, Mr. Story filed

a motion to correct sentence based on a scoresheet error and as ked for a reduction of the sentence for count three to 65.325 months' prison. The trial c ourt granted the motion but sentenced Mr. Story to 65.325 months' prison on all three count s. "Once a sentence has been imposed and the person begins to se rve the sentence, that sentence may not be increased without running af oul of double jeopardy principles." Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265, 1267 (Fla. 2003 ). Here, once Mr. Story began serving the sixty month sentences on counts one and two, jeopardy attached. As a result, the sentences imposed when the trial court granted Mr. Story's motion to correct sentencing error violated double jeopardy because they increase d the period of incarceration for counts one and two. See Hobgood v. State, 16 6 So. 3d 840, 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). This is true even if the original sixty month s entences were incorrectly imposed. See id. at 844-45 (explaining that even if the appell ant's original forty-eight month sentence was an improper downward-departure sentence beca use it fell below

1 See §§ 784.041(2)(a), .03(2), .045(1)(a)(2), Fla. Stat. (2013).- 3 - the Criminal Punishment Code Sc oresheet's "lowes t permissible s entence," it was nevertheless not an illegal sentence). 2 Accordingly, we affirm the order revoking Mr. Story's communit y control and the amended sentence imposed on count three but reverse and rem and for reinstatement of the sixty month sentences originally imposed on counts one a nd two. Because resentencing in this case will be a ministerial act to correct a prior sentence, Mr. Story's presence at resentencing will not be required. See Lecroy v. S tate, 954 So. 2d 747-48 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded with directions.

BLACK and SLEET, JJ., Concur.

2 We observe that the new sentences may simply have been the resu lt of a scrivener's error; there is no evidence that the trial court wa s intentionally attempting to "correct" the original sentences to match the Criminal Punishme nt Code scoresheet by imposing the increased sentences on counts one and two.