TIMOTHY M. ANDERSON, 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.
Timothy Anderson appealed his convictions for both soliciting a minor via computer and traveling to meet that minor. The court vacated the solicitation conviction because its statutory elements are entirely subsumed within the traveling offense, and charging both based on the same conduct violates double jeopardy principles.
The solicitation conviction must be vacated because the statutory elements of solicitation are entirely subsumed within the traveling offense. When the State relies on the same conduct to support both charges, dual convictions violate double jeopardy principles and only the traveling conviction may stand.
[1] A double jeopardy claim based on undisputed facts presents a pure question of law and is reviewed de novo.
[2] A violation of a defendant's substantive double jeopardy rights constitutes fundamental error and may be raised for the first time on appeal.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“the statutory elements of solicitation are entirely subsumed by the elements of traveling”
Establishes the legal principle that solicitation is a lesser-included offense of traveling, forming the basis for the double jeopardy violation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnderson was charged with and convicted of two offenses: (1) using a computer to solicit consent from a person believed to be the custodian of a minor…
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 Double Jeopardy Prohibition cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Timothy M. Anderson, appeals his dual convictions for using a computer or other device to solicit consent from a person believed to be the custodian of a person believed to be a minor to the minor’s participation in sexual conduct, in violation of section 847.0135(3)(b),' Florida Statutes (2011) (“solicitation”), and traveling to meet a person believed to be a minor after using a computer or other device to solicit consent by a person believed to be the purported minor’s custodian, in violation of section 847.0135(4)(b) (“traveling”). Because we agree that under the facts of this case, the solicitation offense was subsumed within the traveling offense, we vacate Anderson’s conviction and sentence for solicitation.
The Florida Supreme Court recently examined the precise subsections at issue in this case, and held that when the State relies upon the . same conduct to support solicitation and traveling charges, convictions for both will violate the prphibition against double jeopardy. State v. Shelley, 176 So.3d 914 (Fla.2015). The court determined that “the statutory elements of solicitation are entirely subsumed by the elements of traveling,” and the legislature has not explicitly stated an intent to authorize separate punishments for the two offenses when they are based on the same underlying conduct. Id. at 919.
We observe that where multiple counts of solicitation are alleged, the legislature has expressly authorized charging each solicitation as a separate offense. See § 847.0135(3)(b), Fla. Stát. Consequently, where the State charges the defendant with multiple counts of solicitation and also charges the defendant with traveling, so long as different conduct is alleged with regard to the solicitation and traveling charges, dual convictions will not violate the defendant’s double jeopardy rights; See Meythaler v. State, 175 So.3d 918, 919 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (vacating conviction and sentence for solicitation where information alleged only single counts of solicitation and traveling based on the same conduct, but noting that if the State had amended the information to allege additional communications that occurred, these counts would have survived).
Here, however, the conduct involved a single solicitation. The State charged - Anderson with single counts of solicitation and traveling based on the same conduct. Accordingly, and as properly conceded by the State, we are constrained, to affirm the conviction and sentence for traveling and vacate the conviction and sentence for solicitation. See Shelley, 176 So.3d at 919; See also *1122 Johnston v. State, 185 So.3d 1281, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D499 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 26, 2016). : We reject Anderson’s remaining arguments without comment.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED IN PART.
ROWE, RAY, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LEE v. State, 223 So. 3d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…73 So. 3d at 1115. See also Meythaler v. State, 175 So. 3d 918 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (noting that State could have avoided the double jeopardy issue by amending the information to allege additional communications on different dates); Anderson v. State, 190 So. 3d 1120, 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (noting that “where the State charges the defendant with multiple counts of solicitation and also charges the defendant with traveling, so long as different conduct is alleged with regard to the solicitation and traveling c…
-
Dettle v. State, 226 So. 3d 285 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…opardy might be avoided if, once the State discovers evidence of multiple criminal communications, it timely amends its information to allege separate solicitations other than the solicitation which caused the defendant to travel. Anderson v. State, 190 So. 3d 1120, 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016); see also Meythaler v. State, 175 So. 3d 918, 919 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). Harmonizing the recent case law from our court and others, I would submit that double jeopardy can be avoided for potentially overlapping offenses if th…
-
Littleman v. State, 222 So. 3d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…eling after solicitation. See, e.g., Lee v. State, Case Nos. 1D15-943 & 1D15-945 (Fla. 1st DCA June 1, 2017) (en banc); McCarter v. State, 204 So. 3d 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016); McCarthy v. State, 193 So. 3d 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016); Anderson v. State, 190 So. 3d 1120, 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016); Stapler v. State, 190 So. 3d 162 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016); Meythaler v. State, 175 So. 3d 918, 919 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). Here, Appellant was separately charged with and pled to solicitations involving two different victims and m…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Shelley, 176 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 2015)
- Stuard Antonio Meythaler v. State, 175 So. 3d 918 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)
- Zavon DeShawn Taylor v. State, 185 So. 3d 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)