ANTWAND HOWARD
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.
Dual convictions for solicitation of a minor and traveling to meet a minor constitute a double jeopardy violation and the lesser conviction must be reversed.
[1] Dual convictions for solicitation of a minor and traveling to meet a minor constitute a violation of double jeopardy protection, as the traveling statute's elements encom…
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“Building on Shelley, Lee requires us to 'consider only the charging document' 'to determine whether multiple convictions of solicitation of a minor, unlawful use of a two-way communications device, and traveling after solicitation of a minor are based upon the same conduct for purposes of double jeopardy.'”
Court's explanation of the controlling standard from Lee v. State
Howard was convicted of solicitation of a minor via computer, traveling to meet a minor, and lewd or lascivious molestation based on multiple separate…
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
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
No. 1D17-1520 _____________________________
ANTWAND HOWARD,
Appellant,
v. STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County. Angela C. Dempsey, Judge.
September 9, 2019 PER CURIAM.
Appellant was charged with, and convicted of, solicitation of a minor via computer, traveling to meet a minor, and lewd or lascivious molestation. The evidence adduced at trial established multiple separate acts within each of those three categories, but the charging document alleged only that the acts occurred within a stated time span, leaving open the possibility that they only occurred once. The verdict form did not list separate acts under any of the three counts alleged in the information. The verdict was guilty as charged.
In post-Anders briefing, Appellant invokes the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Lee v. State, 258 So. 3d 1297 (Fla.
2
Dec. 13, 2018), as establishing a double-jeopardy violation from his convictions for solicitation of a minor and traveling after solicitation of a minor. The supreme court held in State v. Shelley, 176 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 2015), that dual convictions for solicitation of a minor and traveling to meet a minor violate double jeopardy, because the traveling statute includes the language making solicitation a crime; and the court rejected as insufficient the Legislature’s attempts to make it clear that it intends for the two to constitute separate crimes. 176 So. 3d at 919. Building on Shelley, Lee requires us to “consider only the charging document” “to determine whether multiple convictions of solicitation of a minor, unlawful use of a two-way communications device, and traveling after solicitation of a minor are based upon the same conduct for purposes of double jeopardy.” 258 So. 3d at 1299.
We are required to follow Lee; and thus we reverse the lesser conviction, which is the solicitation. Id. at 1305. On remand, the trial court should resentence for the remaining convictions. We otherwise affirm.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
RAY, C.J., and KELSEY and JAY, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Shelley, 176 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 2015)
- Sherman v. State, 272 So. 3d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)