After a defendant on appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence under the subsection of the criminal statute under which he was convicted, and, in the trial court, the trier of fact had a full opportunity to convict based on another subsection of the statute but did not reach this subsection, does an appellate court violate Double Jeopardy when it remands a case for the trial court to enter alternative findings of fact and conclusions of law under the other subsection of the statute?

Does an appellate court violate Double Jeopardy when it remands a case for the trial court to enter alternative findings of fact and conclusions of law under another subsection of the statute after a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence under the subsection of conviction?