Due process and double jeopardy considerations do not prohibit imposition of sentence for an offense the jury initially could not agree on that is retried following a successful appeal of the offenses for which convictions were rendered. At trial, appellant was convicted of five offenses and various accompanying enhancements. However, the jury could not reach a verdict on a sixth count. In the first appeal, the appellate court reversed the convictions on grounds that the trial court had violated appellant’s right to counsel. On retrial, the jury convicted appellant of all six counts. The court sentenced him to the original prison sentence plus eight months for the offense on which the jury originally had been unable to agree. Appellant argued that the sentence violated his state due process and constitutional rights, contending that these principles require that his sentence following a successful appeal cannot be greater than that he received prior to the appeal. The appellate court found no error. These protections prohibit the trial court from imposing a greater sentence only on the charges of which appellant was convicted and successfully appealed.