Double jeopardy does not preclude re-sentencing of a defendant when such defendant intentionally conceals relevant information in determining sentence from the court.

James Stombaugh was no stranger to trouble, In 1994, he entered a nolo contendere plea to four counts of burglary. The State of Florida plea bargained for a sentence of three years in prison and five years probation. The court did not issue a sentencing order at that time. Rather, it released Stombaugh on his own recognizance.

Stombaugh headed to New York where he lived for two years until he was arrested for a misdemeanor He returned to Florida to learn of a warrant issued for his appearance for the 1994 charges.

In 1997 he was charged with forgery and intent to defraud. He entered a guilty plea to forgery and the state made a package offer to cover all charges. Stombaugh asked for leniency. When the court asked the defendant specifically if he had been arrested in New York for a serious offense, he denied it. Stombaugh told the court he was only implicated in a misdemeanor in New York.

When confronted the next day by the fact that he had been indicted in New York for twelve felonies, including sexual battery, Stombaugh denied knowledge of the indictments. The trial court vacated the reduced sentence and upon receipt of copies of the indictments, sentenced the defendant to three years jail, five years of probation and ordered restitution, among other things.

Stombaugh argued that he had already begun serving his 45 month suspended sentence and that by increasing it, the court violated his double jeopardy rights. The District Court of Appeals of Florida for the Fifth District disagreed, implying double jeopardy would not protect a less than candid defendant.