a trial court may impose consecutive sentences after vacating concurrent sentences in response to a motion to correct illegal sentence, in order to effect the intent of the original sentencing court, as long as the newly-imposed sentences are no longer than the original sentences). After imposition of the sentences below, Farrar also filed a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), in which he attempted to raise double jeopardy and statute of limitations challenges to one of the charges. The motion was denied, and Farrar makes the same arguments on appeal. We do not believe that these challenges to Farrar’s underlying convictions are cognizable in a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion. See Rodriguez v. State, 958 So.2d 469 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (<HOLDING>); Echeverria v. State, 949 So.2d 331 (Fla. 1st
holding that conviction did not violate double jeopardy where jury was empaneled and sworn in criminal trial before defendant filed answer to forfeiture complaint holding that where a conviction is reversed after trial the double jeopardy clause does not bar a government appeal that if successful would only reinstate the conviction and would not subject defendant to a second trial holding trial court properly denied defendant relief under rule 3800b2 where defendant attempted to attack his conviction rather than his sentence with a double jeopardy argument holding that a defendant cannot collaterally attack his sentence under 18 usc  3582c2 holding that a defendant and his attorney are a single entity with respect to double jeopardy waiver