Trav_v_State_CB - Additional sentencing after the defendant...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Tran v. State, 965 So.2d 226 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2007) Procedural Background The trial court sentenced Tran to imprisonment, subsequently sentencing him to medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) injections as well. Tran filed a motion to reverse his sentencing of MPA injections. Facts The court mandated MPA injections at sentencing, but did not specify the length of treatment. The court waited for a MPA expert to verify Tran as a candidate before determining duration. Four months after his hearing while Tran is serving his sentence, he is sentenced to MPA injections for five years following his release from prison. Issue Whether amending a penalty after the sentencing hearing abuses double jeopardy. Holding
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Additional sentencing after the defendant begins serving his or her original sentence violates double jeopardy. Reasoning MPA injections are a penalty, as described in the MPA statute. Since its administration is required in criminal sentencing, it is considered a punishment. Once the person begins serving his or her sentence, more penalties cannot be added onto the same offense. Because the court did not include the duration of MPA treatment at sentencing, a required component in the MPA statute, its consequent order of MPA injections increased the initial punishment. When the person begins serving the sentence and an order is added, it violates double jeopardy. Disposition Reversed...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online