JOSE ANGEL PAMBLANCO, 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.
The court held that dual convictions and sentences for traveling to meet a minor for an unlawful sexual act and solicitation of a minor via an electronic device violated the prohibition against double jeopardy.
Appellant was charged with one count of solicitation and one count of traveling based on the same conduct occurring over several days in February 2010…
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 Solicitation Of A Minor cases and more on FLexlaw
Jose Pamblanco (“Appellant”) appeals the partial denial of his motion seeking postconviction relief. Though Appellant’s motion raised numerous issues, only one issue merits discussion. Appellant asserts that his convictions and sentences for both (1) traveling to meet a minor for an unlawful sexual act and (2) solicitation of a minor via a device capable of electronic data storage or transmission violate the prohibition against double jeopardy.
The unlawful solicitation and travel took place over several days in February 2010. Thus, the State could have charged Appellant with multiple counts of solicitation and traveling with regard to the multiple offenses occurring on multiple occasions. However, the information charged Appellant with one count of solicitation and one count of traveling based on the same conduct.
Relying upon Stapler v. State, 190 So.3d 162 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016), decided after the postconviction court’s ruling in this case, we find that the dual convictions and sentences violated Appellant’s right to be free from double jeopardy. 190 So.3d at 165. Accordingly, we affirm his conviction under section 847.0135(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2010), but reverse his conviction under section 847.0135(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2010). We remand for resentencing based upon Appellant’s recalculated score-sheet. We affirm as to all other issues raised by Appellant.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
SAWAYA and BERGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Hart v. State, 246 So. 3d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
-
Pedroza v. State, 291 So. 3d 541 (Fla. 2020)
-
Kadeem Quaishawn Hart v. State, 255 So. 3d 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Stapler v. State, 190 So. 3d 162 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)