on the timeliness of the motion could be waived and Metellus’s failure to object constituted waiver of the claim. Although the Fifth District distinguished this case from Joslin v. State, 826 So.2d 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), and Robie v. State, 807 So.2d 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), it certified conflict to the extent that Joslin and Robie conflict and that they consider rule 3.170 to be jurisdictional. LAW AND ANALYSIS We first address Metellus’s claim that there was a double jeopardy violation. The Fifth District held that no double jeopardy violation occurred. We agree. The double jeopardy clause does not protect a defendant from reprosecution or resentencing if the defendant willfully re fuses to perform a condition of a plea bargain. See, e.g., Melvin v. State, 645 So.2d 448 (Fla.1994) (<HOLDING>); Novaton v. State, 634 So.2d 607 (Fla.1994)
holding that a bargainedfor plea waives the right to attack multiple convictions on double jeopardy grounds holding that the constitutional protection against double jeopardy may be waived pursuant to a bargainedfor plea holding that where a plea agreement is vacated the parties can be returned to their original position without violating the prohibition against double jeopardy holding that a defendants acceptance of sentencing pursuant to a bargained for plea agreement waives any double jeopardy violations holding that constitutional protections against double jeopardy apply to a defendant prosecuted as an habitual criminal