DEMARQUARIUS DEONTE TRUITT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Appellant's conviction for improper use of computer services to solicit a minor and traveling to meet a minor was affirmed; dual convictions do not violate double jeopardy because the statutes reflect legislative intent to punish the offenses separately.
Dual convictions under sections 847.0135(3) and (4) for soliciting a minor via computer and traveling to meet the minor do not violate double jeopardy because the statutes reflect clear legislative intent to punish the offenses separately.
[1] Dual convictions under Florida Statutes sections 847.0135(3) and (4) for soliciting a minor via computer and traveling to meet the minor do not violate double jeopardy wh…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted of improper use of computer services to solicit a minor, traveling to meet a minor, and unlawful use of a two-way communicatio…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Solicitation Of A Minor cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant appeals his conviction and sentence for improper use of computer services in violation of section 847.0135(3), Florida Statutes, traveling to meet a minor in violation of section 847.0135(4), Florida Statutes, and unlawful use of a two-way communications device in violation of section 924.215, Florida Statutes. He raises eight issues on appeal. We affirm without comment as to all issues except one.
Addressing Appellant’s argument that his convictions for improper use of computer services to solicit a minor and traveling to meet the minor constitute double jeopardy, we affirm on authority of State v. Murphy, 124 So.3d 323, 330-31 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), in which this court held that dual convictions for solicitation of a minor and traveling to meet the minor do not violate double jeopardy because sections 847.0135(3) and (4) reflect a clear legislative intent to punish the offenses separately. Accord Griffis v. State, 133 So.3d 653 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Cantrell v. State, 132 So.3d 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Elsherry v. State, 130 So.3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). As this court did in Griffis, we acknowledge and certify a conflict on this issue with HaHley v. State, 129 So.3d 486 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
AFFIRMED; CONFLICT CERTIFIED.
PADOVANO, THOMAS, and CLARK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Snow v. State, 157 So. 3d 559 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
-
Demarquarius Deonte Truitt v. State, 194 So. 3d 586 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)
Authorities Cited
- State v. Murphy, 124 So. 3d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
- Hartley v. State, 129 So. 3d 486 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- Cantrell v. State, 132 So. 3d 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
- Elsberry v. State, 130 So. 3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
- Griffis v. State, 133 So. 3d 653 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)