and that he never specifically agreed that the “truth” was the same testimony he gave at his own earlier sentencing. Metellus had originally testified under oath at his own sentencing hearing that Elozar was involved in the crime spree for which he was indicted. At a second hearing, he again stated that his previous testimony regarding Elozar was “the truth.” At Elozar’s trial, and under oath, Metellus presented a contradictory version of “the truth.” Both versions cannot be “the truth.” Thus, we agree with the Fifth District that Metellus’s competing versions of “the truth” amount to a substantial noncompliance with the terms of his plea agreement and the trial court did not place Metellus in double jeopardy when it resen-tenced him. See, e.g., Brown v. State, 367 So.2d 616 (Fla.1979) (<HOLDING>); State ex rel. Miller v. Swanson, 411 So.2d
holding a defendant who pleads guilty without raising a double jeopardy issue  has waived his right to appeal that issue holding that double jeopardy does not bar the prosecutions appeal of a trial courts ruling which overturns a jurys guilty verdict holding that double jeopardy does not bar reprosecution of an accused who refuses to perform a condition of his guilty plea holding jeopardy attaches when the guilty plea is accepted holding double jeopardy bar on subsequent prosecution did not apply even after defendant had been sentenced when he breached conditions of his guilty plea and refused to testify for a second time at codefendants retrial for murder