DANNY PASICOLAN
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
The appellant appealed his convictions on three issues, challenging two convictions as violating double jeopardy protections. The appellate court affirmed the first two issues without comment and initially affirmed the double jeopardy challenge under Lee v. State, but subsequently applied the Supreme Court's revised standard in Lee II to vacate two convictions while affirming two others.
The court vacated the convictions in Counts II and IV as violating double jeopardy protections under the revised standard established in Lee II, which requires courts to consider only the charging document to determine whether multiple convictions are based on the same conduct. The convictions in Counts I and III were affirmed.
[1] When evaluating whether multiple convictions for solicitation, unlawful use of a two-way communications device, and traveling to meet a minor violate double jeopardy prot…
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 intelligence“a reviewing court should only consider the charging document to determine whether multiple convictions for solicitation, unlawful use of a two-way communications device, and traveling were based upon the same conduct for purposes of double jeopardy”
Statement of the Supreme Court's revised test in Lee v. State, 258 So. 3d 1297 (Fla. 2018)
The appellant was convicted of four counts: traveling to meet a minor (Count I), unlawful use of a two-way communications device (Count II), an unspec…
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 timely appealed his convictions and raised three issues on appeal. We affirm the first two issues without further comment.
In his third issue, the appellant argued that two of his convictions violated his constitutional right against double jeopardy. Specifically, he argued that use of computer services to solicit a minor (Count IV) was subsumed by traveling to meet a minor (Count I) and that unlawful use of a two-way communications device (Count II) was subsumed by the other three counts. We affirmed these convictions under our decision in Lee v. State, 223 So. 3d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). In 2018, the Supreme Court quashed our opinion in Lee and held that a reviewing court should only consider the charging document to determine whether multiple convictions for solicitation, unlawful use of a two-way communications device, and traveling were based upon the same conduct for purposes of double jeopardy. Lee v. State, 258 So. 3d 1297 (Fla. 2018) (Lee II). Applying Lee II to this case, the appellant’s convictions in Counts II and IV are VACATED. The appellant’s convictions in Counts I and III are AFFIRMED.
ROBERTS, RAY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Courtenay H. Miller, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General; Lauren Gonzalez and Michael L. Schaub, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- LEE v. State, 223 So. 3d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)
- Sherman v. State, 272 So. 3d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
- LEE v. State, 258 So. 3d 1297 (Fla. 2018)