MARK GRIFFIS, 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 was convicted of using a computer to solicit a minor and traveling to meet that minor for sexual purposes after responding to a Craigslist advertisement and communicating with undercover officers posing as a 14-year-old girl. On appeal, Appellant challenged the denial of his motion for mistrial based on alleged comments on his right to silence and contended his dual convictions violated double jeopardy.
The trial court did not err in denying the motion for mistrial because any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Dual convictions under sections 847.0135(3) and (4) do not violate double jeopardy because these sections reflect a clear legislative intent to punish the offenses separately.
[1] A trial court's denial of a motion for mistrial is harmless error if there is no reasonable probability that the challenged testimony affected the verdict.
[2] Dual convictions for soliciting a minor online and traveling to meet a minor do not violate double jeopardy when the relevant statutes demonstrate a clear legislative int…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“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”
Establishes the court's holding on the double jeopardy issue, which was the primary legal question on appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant responded to a Craigslist advertisement and engaged in several hours of email and text communications with undercover officers posing as a 1…
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
After responding to an advertisement posted on the Craigslist website, Appellant communicated for several hours by email and text with undercover officers posing as a 14-year-old girl who was home alone. Appellant described in graphic detail the sexual acts he intended to perform on the girl and, after requesting the girl’s address for his GPS system, he drove to Panama City to what he thought was the girl’s house. Upon arrival, Appellant was arrested. He had condoms, Astroglide lubrication, and two cans of Mike’s Hard Lemonade in his possession.
Appellant was charged with one count of using a computer online service to solicit a person he believed to be a minor in order to commit an unlawful sexual act in violation of section 847.0135(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2011), and one count of traveling to meet a person he believed to be a minor in order to commit an unlawful sexual act in violation of section 847.0135(4)(a). The jury found Appellant guilty as charged and the trial court sentenced him to a term of 5 years in prison followed by 10 years of sex offender probation. On appeal, Appellant contends that (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial following testimony that was susceptible to being construed as a comment on his right to remain silent, and (2) his dual convictions violate double jeopardy.
We summarily affirm the first issue because there is no reasonable probability that the single question and answer at issue affected the verdict; thus, any error in the denial of the motion for mistrial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Ventura v. State, 29 So.3d 1086 (Fla.2010); State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
We affirm the second issue based upon State v. Murphy, 124 So.3d 323 (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 Cantrell v. State, No. 1D12-4952, 132 So.3d 931, 2014 WL 660193 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 21, 2014); Elsberry v. State, 130 So.3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). We recognize that the Fourth District reached the opposite conclusion in Hartley v. State, 129 So.3d 486 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), and accordingly we certify conflict with that decision. See also Pinder v. State, 128 So.3d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (stating that the defendant’s convictions under sections 847.0135(3) and (4) would have violated double jeopardy but for the fact that the solicitation occurred over an eight-day period before the defendant traveled to meet the minor).
AFFIRMED; CONFLICT CERTIFIED.
LEWIS, C.J., and ROWE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Snow v. State, 157 So. 3d 559 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…tatutes, reflect a clear legislative intent to punish the offenses separately. This holding has been reaffirmed in Elsberry v. State, 130 So. 3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Cantrell v. State, 132 So. 3d 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); [*561] Griffis v. State, 133 So. 3d 653 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); State v. Davis, 141 So. 3d 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Ho Yeaon Seo v. State, 143 So. 3d 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); McCarthy v. State, 145 So. 3d 222 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); and Truitt v. State, 146 So. 3d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). We…1 / 2
-
State v. Davis, 141 So. 3d 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…1st DCA [*1234] 2014), which extended the holding in State v. Murphy, 124 So. 3d at 380, to the specific statutory subsections at issue here. See also Cantrell v. State, 132 So. 3d 931, 933 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (citing Elsberry) and Griffis v. State, 133 So. 3d 653, 654 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (citing Elsberry and Cantrell). Contra Shelley v. State, 134 So. 3d 1138, 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (“Thus, the soliciting offense does not contain an element that is not found in the traveling offense. As a result, dual convi…
-
Exantus v. State, 198 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…*2] ishments for each violation of section 847.0135(3)(b) ... there is no explicit statement of intent to authorize multiple punishments for conduct that violates both section 847.0135(3)(b) and section 847.0135(4)(b).” Id. But see Griffis v. State, 133 So. 3d 653, 654 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (holding “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 separa…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Ventura v. State, 29 So. 3d 1086 (Fla. 2010)
- State v. Murphy, 124 So. 3d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
- Hartley v. State, 129 So. 3d 486 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- Pinder v. State, 128 So. 3d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)
- Cantrell v. State, 132 So. 3d 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
- Elsberry v. State, 130 So. 3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)