Case Name: Jack James JETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1998-10-05
Citations: 722 So. 2d 211
Docket Number: No. 97-2697
Parties: Jack James JETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: BARFIELD, C.J., and DAVIS, J., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 722
Pages: 211–216

Head Matter:
Jack James JETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 97-2697.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Oct. 5, 1998.
Appellant, pro se.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Trisha E. Meggs, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Opinion:
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
Jack James Jett appeals from the summary denial of a motion for post conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, alternatively styled as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Jett was sentenced to concurrent terms of fifteen years incarceration on counts I and II in circuit court case no. 91-774 and case no. 91-681, following a finding that he had violated a condition of probation. One of the provisions of his probation was that it would terminate upon his payment of restitution. On October 1, 1993, he tested positive for cocaine. On October 4, 1993, he paid off his restitution. He was tested again in December, 1993, and again failed the test, whereupon a warrant was obtained for violation of probation.
Jett contends that count II had been dismissed pursuant to his original plea agreement, and that because he had completed serving his original sentence and probation for count I, he is now being held illegally. We find that the trial judge correctly determined that relief pursuant to rule 3.850 was time-barred, and that he recognized the sentence for count II was unlawful because that count had been dismissed. However, we disagree with his holding that Jett was not entitled to relief through habeas corpus because he was lawfully confined on count I.
No steps were taken to prosecute Jett for violation of probation until after his probation had terminated on October 4, 1993. It was then too late. State v. Hall, 641 So.2d 403 (Fla.1994). Consequently, Jett has been twice punished for the same offense. Being placed twice in jeopardy for the same offense is a fundamental constitutional flaw cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Hopping v. State, 708 So.2d 263 (Fla.1998). The allegations of the pleading before the trial court were sufficient to state a basis for relief under rule 3.800(a). The error is apparent on the face of the record and requires no evidentiary hearing. Utilization of rule 3.800(a) is proper in this circumstance. See DeSantis v. State, 400 So.2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
We review the case as properly pled under rule 3.800(a), and REVERSE the decision of the trial court. Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(h). The case is REMANDED to the trial court with directions to vacate both of the sentences imposed in case no. 91-774 and the sentence imposed in case no. 91-681.
BARFIELD, C.J., and DAVIS, J., concur.
BENTON, J., concurs in the result with opinion.