CLYDE LITTLEMAN, JR., 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.
Littleman was convicted of multiple offenses related to using a computer service to solicit a minor and traveling to meet that minor for sexual conduct. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed his convictions despite recognizing a potential double jeopardy conflict with other district courts regarding whether dual convictions under the same statute violate constitutional protections against double punishment.
The court affirmed Littleman's convictions on all counts, rejecting the double jeopardy subsumption argument based on State v. Murphy. However, the court acknowledged that sister courts have held that double jeopardy bars dual convictions under these statutes when solicitation and travel occur on the same day.
[1] Convictions for using a computer service to solicit a person believed to be a minor to engage in sexual conduct, and for using a computer service to solicit the minor's g…
[2] Double jeopardy bars dual convictions under Florida Statutes section 847.0135(3) and (4) where the solicitation and the traveling occur on the same day.
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“we affirm Appellant's judgment and sentence and reject his argument that his convictions on Counts 3 and 4...violate double jeopardy because the offenses in those counts are subsumed within the offense for which he was convicted on Count 1”
The court's holding affirming the convictions despite the double jeopardy claim
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLittleman responded to a Craigslist posting and sent sexually-explicit texts and emails to undercover officers posing as a 14-year-old girl and her un…
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 Lesser Included Offense Analysis cases and more on FLexlaw
Based on State v. Murphy, 124 So.Sd 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), we affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence and reject his argument that his convictions on Counts 3 and 4 (use of a computer service to solicit a person believed to be a minor to engage in sexual conduct, § 847.0135(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2012), and use of a computer service to solicit a person believed to be the guardian of the minor to consent to the minor’s participation in sexual conduct, § 847.0135(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (2012)) violate double jeopardy because the offenses in those counts are subsumed within the offense for which he was convicted on Count 1 (traveling to meet a person believed to be a minor to engage in sexual conduct after soliciting the minor or the person believed to be by minor’s guardian using a computer service, § 847.0135(4), Fla. Stat. (2012)). We recognize that our sister courts have held that double jeopardy bars dual convictions under section 847.0135(3) and (4) where, as here, the solicitation and the traveling occur on the same day,1 see Shelley v. State, 134 So.3d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, 147 So.3d 527 (Fla. 2014); Hartley v. State, 129 So.3d 486 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Pinder v. State, 128 So.3d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013), and as we have done'in prior cases, we certify conflict with those decisions.
AFFIRMED; CONFLICT CERTIFIED.
WETHERELL, ROWE, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dygart v. State, 163 So. 3d 1292 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
-
Littleman v. State, 222 So. 3d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)
Authorities Cited
- Shelley v. State, 134 So. 3d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
- Hartley v. State, 129 So. 3d 486 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- Pinder v. State, 128 So. 3d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)