to a life sentence on the armed burglary of a dwelling conviction and a concurrent sentence of fifteen years’ imprisonment on the attempted armed home-invasion robbery conviction. The defendant argues that the trial court violated the prohibition against double jeopardy by entering a conviction and sentence on both the armed burglary of a dwelling conviction and the attempted armed home-invasion robbery conviction because both convictions arose out of the same incident. Schulterbmndt v. State, 984 So.2d 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), and Olivera v. State, 92 So.3d 924 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, Olivera v. State, 104 So.3d 1086 (Fla.2012), support the defendant’s double jeopardy claim, and the State commendably concedes error. See also Jules v. State, 113 So.3d 949 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (<HOLDING>); Mendez v. State, 798 So.2d 749 (Fla. 5th DCA
holding that the double jeopardy clause was not violated by two convictions arising from the same criminal episode because the crimes of attempted burglary and possession of burglary tools each had an element the other did not and were thus separate crimes holding convictions for burglary of a dwelling with assault or battery and home invasion robbery violated double jeopardy and section 7750214b because burglary of a dwelling was subsumed by the home invasion robbery offense holding that where a burglary conviction is elevated to a class a felony based on the same bodily injury that forms the basis of a class b robbery conviction the two cannot stand holding that defendants conviction for six counts of armed robbery based on his simultaneous robbery of six individuals at a restaurant should be counted as a single conviction holding that the defendants homeinvasion robbery conviction violated double jeopardy because it arose from the same incident as the defendants burglary with an assault or battery conviction