HO YEAON SEO, 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.
On remand from the Florida Supreme Court following State v. Shelley, the court vacated the appellant's conviction for unlawful use of computer service to solicit a minor under section 847.0135(3)(a) as a lesser included offense, while affirming the conviction for traveling to meet a minor under section 847.0135(4)(a), based on double jeopardy principles prohibiting separate convictions for the same conduct.
Double jeopardy principles prohibit separate convictions for unlawful use of computer service to solicit a minor and traveling to meet a minor when based on the same conduct, requiring vacation of the lesser included offense conviction.
[1] Double jeopardy principles prohibit separate convictions for unlawful use of computer service to solicit a minor under section 847.0135(3)(a) and traveling to meet a mino…
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 intelligenceHo Yeaon Seo was convicted of unlawful use of computer service in violation of section 847.0135(3)(a) and traveling to meet a minor in violation of se…
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 Traveling To Meet A Minor cases and more on FLexlaw
ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME’ COURT
We previously affirmed Appellant’s convictions for unlawful use., of computer service in violation of section 847.0135(3)(a), Florida Statutes, and traveling to meet a minor in violation of section 847.0135(4)(a). Ho Yeaon Seo v. State, 143 So.3d 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). Thereafter, the Florida Supreme Court quashed our decision and remanded for reconsideration in light of State v. Shelley, 176 So.3d 914 (Fla.2015), which held that double jeopardy principles prohibit separate convictions for solicitation under section 847.0135(3)(b) and traveling to meet a minor after solici*1088tation pursuant to section 847.0135(4)(b) if the charges are based on the same conduct.
After the remand, we ordered the State to show cause why Appellant’s conviction and sentence for the lesser included offense should not be vacated based on Shelley. The State filed a response stating that, “[p]ursuant to Shelley and the specific facts of this case, the State does not oppose this Court vacating Appellant’s conviction and sentence for unlawful use of a computer service to solicit a minor.” Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to vacate Appellant’s conviction and sentence for the lesser included offense of using a computer online service to solicit a minor. In all other respects, we affirm for the reasons stated in our original opinion.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED with instructions.
WETHERELL, JAY, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Shelley, 176 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 2015)
- HO Yeaon SEO v. State, 143 So. 3d 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)