DAVID LEON LASHLEY, 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.
David Lashley was convicted of multiple offenses related to soliciting a minor via computer and traveling to meet the minor. The appellate court affirmed his conviction for traveling to meet a minor but reversed his convictions for improper use of a computer to solicit and unlawful use of a two-way communications device, finding these convictions violated double jeopardy principles when based on the same conduct.
The court affirmed Lashley's conviction for traveling to meet a minor after solicitation but reversed his convictions for improper use of a computer to solicit and unlawful use of a two-way communications device as violations of double jeopardy principles. The court remanded for resentencing based on a corrected criminal punishment code scoresheet.
[1] Double jeopardy principles prohibit separate convictions for solicitation and traveling to meet a minor if the charges were based on the same conduct.
[2] The reasoning in State v. …
Previewing 2 of 4 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 Florida Supreme Court held that double jeopardy principles prohibit separate convictions for solicitation under section 847.0135(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2011), and traveling to meet a minor after solicitation pursuant to section 847.0135(4)(b) if the charges were based on the same conduct”
Establishes the double jeopardy rule from Shelley that applies to Lashley's convictions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLashley was convicted by jury of: (1) improper use of a computer service to solicit a minor under Fla. Stat. § 847.0135(3)(a); (2) unlawful use of a t…
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 Unlawful Use Of A Two-Way Communications Device cases and more on FLexlaw
David Leon Lashley, Appellant, was convicted by a jury of improper use of a computer service to solicit a minor contrary to section 847.0135(3)(a), Florida Statutes'(2011); unlawful use of a two-way communications device to further the commission of a felony contrary to section 934.215; traveling to meet a person believed to be a minor after using a computer device capable of electronic data storage to solicit unlawful sexual conduct contrary to section 847.0135(4)(a); and- failure to appear, ■ contrary to ■ section 843.15(l)(a). Appellant challenges .his convictions for solicitation, unlawful use of a two-way communications device; and traveling after solicitation. For the reasons that follow, we affirm Appellant’s conviction for traveling after- solicitation,, reverse his convictions for improper use Of. a computer to solicit and unlawful use of a two-way communications device; - and remand for resentencing based upon, a corrected criminal punishment code scoresheet, ,
In State v. Shelley, 176 So.3d 914, 919 (Fla.2015), the Florida Supreme Court held that double jeopardy principles prohibit separate convictioris for solicitation under section 847.0135(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2011), and traveling to meet a minor after solicitation pursuant to section 847.0135(4)(b) if the charges were based on the same conduct. The State properly concedes that the reasoning in Shelley applies to this case, even though this case involves violations of sections 847.0135(3)(a) and (4)(a). Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court with directions to vacate Appellant’s conviction and sentence for the lesser included offense of using a computer service to solicit a child to engage in sexual conduct in violation of section 847.0135(3)(a).
Appellant also contends that if either his conviction for solicitation or traveling after solicitation withstands our review, then his conviction for unlawful use of a two-way communications device *1086should be vacated to prevent a violation of double jeopardy. We affirm Appellant’s conviction for traveling to meet a person believed to be a child after using a computer device capable of electronic data storage to solicit unlawful sexual conduct, but agree with Appellant that his conviction for unlawful use of a two-way communications device must be vacated pursuant to our decision in Hamilton v. State, 163 So.3d 1277, 1279 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (holding that convictions arising out of the same criminal episode for traveling to meet a minor under section 847.0135(4), Florida Statutes (2013), and unlawful use of a two-way communications device under section 934.215, Florida Statutes (2013), violate double jeopardy). See also Holt v. State, 173 So.3d 1079 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
RAY, BILBREY, and JAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Assanti v. State, 227 So. 3d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…inor under section 847.0135(4)(b) and unlawful use of computer services to solicit under section 847.0135(3)(b) violated double jeopardy. The reasoning of Shelley equally applies to violations of sections 847.0135(4)(a) and (3)(a). Lashley v. State, 194 So. 3d 1084, 1085 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). Assanti argues that his conviction for solicitation should be vacated under Shelley. The State argues that Shelley is not controlling in the instant case because the convictions are based on separate and distinct acts. We…
-
Straitiff v. State, 228 So. 3d 1173 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…d 764, 765 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)). Accordingly, we vacate Petitioner’s conviction and sentence for solicitation and remand for resentencing based upon a corrected criminal punishment code score-sheet. See Pamblanco, 199 So. 3d at 507; Lashley v. State, 194 So. 3d 1084, 1085 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS GRANTED, IN PART. CONVICTION AND SENTENCE FOR SOLICITATION VACATED. COHEN, C.J., and WALLIS, J., concur. LAMBERT, J., concurs and concurs specially, with opinion. , In his petition, P…
-
Jarrell v. State, 224 So. 3d 890 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…concedes that the trial court should consider a revised scoresheet when making its sentencing decision. We therefore reverse and remand for preparation of a revised score-sheet for the trial court to consider upon resentencing. See Lashley v. State, 194 So. 3d 1084 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016); Hamilton v. State, 163 So. 3d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (both remanding for resentencing following-revision of the scoresheets). REVERSED AND REMANDED. ROWE, MAKAR, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Shelley, 176 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 2015)
- Hamilton v. State, 163 So. 3d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
- Holt v. State, 173 So. 3d 1079 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)