robbery with a firearm. Reversed and remanded for a new trial. CASANUEVA, J., Concurs. VILLANTI, J., Concurs with opinion. 1 . Harris does not contest his battery conviction and sentence of time served on count two. VILLANTI, Judge, Concurring. I fully concur in the majority decision, but write to point out the risk Harris is taking in this case. At this point, if still available, Harris could acquiesce to the State’s proffered remedy of a conviction for the second-degree felony of attempted robbery with a firearm. Depending on what enhancements the State could prove, Harris’s maximum sentence would be thirty years in prison. However, on remand, the State may elect to amend the information to charge the completed robbery. See Jaramillo v. State, 659 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (<HOLDING>). Should the State elect to file such an
holding double jeopardy does not bar second trial after granting of new trial for reason other than insufficiency of evidence 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 that imposition of a habitual offender sentence on remand after the trial courts pronouncement of a nonhabitual sentence in the original proceeding does not violate double jeopardy holding that a defendants attorney can waive the defendants sixth amendment confrontation right so long as the defendant does not dissent from his attorneys decision and so long as it can be said that the attorneys decision was a legitimate trial tactic or part of a prudent trial strategy holding that the state can file an amended information on remand after a judgment is reversed so long as the new charge does not violate the defendants double jeopardy rights