intended. The trial court rejected Appellant’s contention, finding that it did not abuse its discret entences imposed for Appellant’s two counts of robbery and one count of burglary did not exceed the statutory maximum for such offenses. See n. 14, supra. Thus, it maintains, Appellant’s reliance on Missouri v. Hunter is misplaced as that case made clear that the Double Jeopardy Clause only prevents a sentencing court from imposing punishment greater than that authorized by the legislature in cases involving cumulative sentences imposed in a single trial. Finally, the Commonwealth submits that Appellant’s claim of a Double Jeopardy Clause violation is unsupported as this Court has already rejected such a claim. See Commonwealth v. Fletcher, 580 Pa. 403, 861 A.2d 898, 912 (2004) (<HOLDING>). We conclude that Appellant is not entitled to
holding double jeopardy clause applicable to civil penalties under the false claims act holding that the double jeopardy clause prohibits courts from imposing greater penalties than the legislature intended holding that resentencing hearing in capital case is not barred by double jeopardy when appeals court rejects sole aggravating factor found by sentencer failure of sentencer to find other alleged aggravating factors is not an acquittal of these factors for double jeopardy purposes holding that aggravating circumstances in capital penalty proceedings are not separate penalties or offenses to which the protection against double jeopardy applies holding that the constitutional protection against double jeopardy may be waived pursuant to a bargainedfor plea