protections. In response, the State first contends appellant waived the right to assert a double jeopardy argument on appeal. The general rule is that a plea of guilty precludes a later attack on appellant’s conviction and/or sentence premised on double jeopardy grounds. United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 569, 109 S.Ct. 757, 102 L.Ed.2d 927 (1989). -However, there is an exception to this general rule when (1) the entered plea was a general plea as distinguished from a bargained plea; (2) the double jeopardy violation is apparent from the face of the record; and (3) the record does not indicate a waiver of the double jeopardy violation. Novaton v. State, 634 So.2d 607, 609 (Fla.1994). A “straight up” or “open plea” does not amount to a bargained for plea. Williamson v. S DCA 1992) (<HOLDING>). Further, section 893.03(2)(a)(4), Florida
holding that a defendant may not be charged with two separate offenses premised on two amounts of cocaine one found in a box and one found in a bag located in the passenger compartment of the defendants vehicle holding that when two underlying offenses are charged in an indictment for capital murder the state need only prove one of the two offenses to support the conviction holding that after making an arrest of the driver of a vehicle the police may search the passenger compartment of the vehicle holding unanimity requirement not violated when charge stated two separate counts with two separate and distinct offenses in each case holding evidence did not connect defendant to narcotics found in individual bags inside a larger bag in a car following the defendants car when the only connection was his fingerprints on outer bag and when the driver and passenger of the car in which the drugs were found exhibited nervousness and other factors indicating consciousness of guilt