STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
JERMAINE FRANKLIN DAVIS, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
The court held that double jeopardy principles prohibit separate convictions for unlawful use of a computer service to solicit a minor and traveling to meet a minor if based on the same conduct.
Defendant was convicted of unlawful use of a computer service to solicit a minor and traveling to meet a minor. The Florida Supreme Court remanded for…
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 Davis’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). State v. Davis, 141 So.3d 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). The Florida Supreme Court then 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 solicitation- pursuant to section 847.0135(4)(b) if based on the same conduct.
In response to our show cause order following remand, the State indicated that under Shelley and the specific facts of this case, Davis’s conviction and sentence for unlawful use of a computer service to solicit a minor should be vacated. We agree, so we reverse and remand for the trial court to vacate that conviction and sentence. We do not disturb this Court’s earlier decision rejecting Davis’s other contentions.*
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED with instructions.
WETHERELL, JAY, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wade v. State, 201 So. 3d 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…ourt to resentence Appellant pursuant to the individualized factors under section 921.1401, Florida Statutes, which must be considered when sentencing a juvenile, as explained in Landrum v. State, 192 So. 3d 459 (Fla.2016). See also Carter v. State, 194 So. 3d 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). As the appellant filed an initial brief but failed to address any of the remaining claims, he has waived the right to have them considered in this appeal. See Watson v. State, 975 So. 2d 572, 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (“Traditiona…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Shelley, 176 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 2015)
- State v. Davis, 141 So. 3d 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)