LAWRENCE D. BROWN MCCARTER, 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.
Lawrence McCarter was convicted of soliciting a minor and traveling to meet a minor for sex. On appeal, McCarter challenged whether these dual convictions violated double jeopardy principles under Florida law, specifically State v. Shelley. The court affirmed both convictions, finding that the conduct underlying each offense was sufficiently distinct to constitute separate criminal transactions.
The court affirmed both convictions, holding that McCarter's solicitation and traveling convictions did not arise from the same criminal transaction and therefore do not violate double jeopardy. The offenses involved different dates, locations, and criminal goals—gaining illicit pictures versus arranging face-to-face meetings—constituting distinct criminal episodes.
[1] Convictions for soliciting a minor and traveling to meet a minor for sex do not violate double jeopardy if they are based on distinct criminal acts and not the same crimi…
[2] To determine if multiple offenses arise from the same conduct for double jeopardy purposes, courts consider factors such as multiple victims, multiple locations, and a te…
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“convictions for solicitation (see § 847.0135(3), Florida Statutes), and traveling after solicitation (see § 847.0135(4), Florida Statutes), cannot stand if they are based upon the same conduct”
Establishes the Shelley double jeopardy rule that prohibits multiple convictions for solicitation and traveling offenses when based on the same conduct.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcCarter used social media starting July 19, 2013, to solicit naked photos from a 14-year-old female victim more than a dozen times. Beginning July 22…
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 Multiple Victims cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the seven issues Appellant raises on appeal without comment, except for discussing the double jeopardy he raises related to State v. Shelley, 176 So.3d 914 (Fla.2015).
Appellant argues that his dual convictions for soliciting a minor and travel-ling to meet a minor for sex constitute a violation of double'jeopardy under Shelley. Both the federal and state Constitutions protect defendants against multiple convictions for the same crime. See Valdes v. State, 3 So.3d 1067, 1069 (Fla.2009). And under Shelley, convictions for solicitation (see § 847.0135(3), Florida Statutes), and traveling after solicitation (see § 847.0135(4), Florida Statutes), cannot stand if they are based upon the same conduct.
We affirm in this case because Appellant’s solicitation and traveling convictions did not arise from the same criminal transaction and were distinct criminal acts. To determine if multiple offenses arise from the same conduct, courts consider *530things like “whether there are multiple victims, whether the offenses occurred in multiple locations, and whether there has been a ‘temporal break’ between offenses.” State v. Paul, 934 So.2d 1167, 1172-73 (Fla.2006) (overruled on other grounds by Valdes, 3 So.3d at 1077). See also Cabrera v. State, 884 So.2d 482, 484 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (holding that in order for crimes to Be considered to have occurred in more than one criminal episode, there must be a sufficient temporal break between the two acts in order to allow the offender to reflect and form a new criminal intent for each offense).
Here, based on the testimony and argument provided at trial, the solicitation evidence is that Appellant used social media to solicit naked photos from a 14 year-old female victim more than a dozen times beginning on July 19, 2013. The State’s solicitation case and argument to the jury focused on these requests for illicit pictures, which didn’t involve traveling, but taking and sending pictures with a smart-phone. In turn, Appellant’s solicitation defense attempted to counter the State by reference to the same picture evidence: “where is the picture? They’re not in evidence. Supposedly he sent a picture— Didn’t happen. In fairness, they don’t have to [put a picture in evidence], but I would suggest to you that lack of it is circumstantial evidence that shows that it didn’t happen.”
Conversely, the traveling conviction was supported by evidence that Appellant messaged the victim from his phone to entice her to meetings where he would molest her. It happened multiple times. Appellant messaged and then traveled to meet her once at a church retreat, once at a movie theatre, and other times at the victim’s home. The information and evidence indicated that this criminal conduct began on July 22, 2013, the date Appellant arrived at the church retreat.
The trial record thus demonstrates that this wasn’t a Shelley-type case where the State used the same solicitation to charge the defendant with both solicitation and traveling after solicitation. The solicitation and traveling convictions arose from different criminal episodes and acts, which involved different dates, locations, and criminal goals—gaining illicit pictures versus arranging fa'ce-to-face hookups. Because Appellant’s convictions do not violate double jeopardy, we AFFIRM.
ROBERTS, CJ., and WOLF, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LEE v. State, 223 So. 3d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…a court may conclude that multiple acts are distinct for double jeopardy purposes. See [*350] Graham, 207 So. 3d at 141 (relying on the record to determine whether the defendant’s multiple convictions were based on distinct acts); McCarter v. State, 204 So. 3d 529, 530 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (concluding that,, the record established two distinct acts of solicitation, a request for illicit pictures and a solicitation for a lewd or lascivious molestation, to support appellant’s dual convictions for solicitation an…1 / 3
-
Dettle v. State, 384 So. 3d 742 (Fla. 2024)…sexual conduct did not violate double jeopardy because the “information . . . charged the two offenses on different dates, and the evidence supports the State's contention that the two charges were not based on the same conduct"); McCarter v. State, 204 So. 3d 529, 530 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (reviewing the evidentiary record to conclude that the “solicitation and traveling convictions arose from different criminal episodes and acts, which involved different dates, locations, and criminal goals” and thus did not…
-
Hughes v. State, 201 So. 3d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…t violated when more than one charge is brought where there is a temporal break between computer conversations and there is not one continuous criminal act); Hammel v. State, 934 So. 2d 634, 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (same); see also McCarter v. State, 204 So. 3d 529, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D2100, 2016 WL 4708570 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 8, 2016); Welch v. State, 189 So. 3d 296, 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); Barnett v. State, 159 So. 3d 922, 925 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (finding that a two day gap between the solicitation conduct an…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Eli Enrique Valdes v. State, 3 So. 3d 1067 (Fla. 2009)
- State v. Shelley, 176 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 2015)
- State v. Paul, 934 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 2006)
- Cabrera v. State, 884 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)