KARL DOUGLAS DOOM, 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.
Dual convictions for soliciting sex with a minor via computer and traveling to meet a minor for sex, arising from the same criminal transaction, violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.
Karl Doom was convicted of using a computer to solicit sex with a minor and traveling to meet a minor for sex, both alleged to have occurred on the sa…
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 Criminal Transaction Or Episode cases and more on FLexlaw
Karl Doom appeals following his no contest plea to use of a computer to solicit sex with a minor and to traveling to meet a minor for sex, both crimes alleged to have occurred on the same date. The dual convictions violated the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. Accordingly, we reverse the conviction and sentence for use of a computer to solicit sex with a minor.
Doom raises the double jeopardy violation as a matter of fundamental error. He relies on this court’s decision in Shelley v. State, 134 So.3d 1138, 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, No. SC14-755, 2014 WL 3360176 (Fla. July 1, 2014), in which we held that “dual convictions for soliciting and traveling in the course of one criminal transaction or episode violate the prohibition against double jeopardy.”
The State maintains that Shelley was . incorrectly decided, and it additionally argues that double jeopardy was not violated in this case because there were multiple communications that could have been charged as multiple counts. But this argument was also rejected in Shelley. See id. at 1141-42 (“The State only charged one use of computer devices to solicit, and that charge was based on a solicitation occurring on the same date as the travelling offense. We find no legal basis to deny a double jeopardy challenge based on uncharged conduct simply because it could have been charged.”). Here, the State charged that both the solicitation and the traveling offenses occurred on February 9, 2013, thus bringing this case within the rule announced in Shelley. As we did in Shelley, we certify conflict with State v. Murphy, 124 So.3d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
Traveling conviction affirmed; soliciting conviction and sentence reversed; conflict certified.
LaROSE and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rodriguez v. State, 198 So. 3d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…y violation is apparent on the face of the record.”); Sang Youn Kim v. State, 154 So. 3d 1168, 1169 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (vacating solicitation offense where the information alleged it occurred on the same day as the traveling offense); Doom v. State, 153 So. 3d 382, 383 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (“Here, the State charged that both the solicitation and the traveling offenses occurred on February 9, 2013, thus bringing this case within the rule announced in Shelley.”). Accordingly, we vacate Rodriguez’s judgment and s…
Authorities Cited
- Shelley v. State, 134 So. 3d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
- State v. Murphy, 124 So. 3d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)