RAYMOND E. KIDDER, 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.
Appellant's convictions for computer enticement and traveling to meet a minor violated double jeopardy, but because they resulted from a plea bargain, the court affirmed without prejudice to postconviction relief.
A defendant cannot obtain direct appellate relief for double jeopardy violations arising from a plea bargain, but may pursue postconviction relief.
[1] A defendant who enters a plea bargain resulting in overlapping convictions that violate double jeopardy cannot obtain direct appellate relief but may pursue postconvictio…
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 intelligence“Because Mr. Kidder's judgment and sentences were the result of a plea bargain, he is not entitled to the requested relief.”
Court explaining why direct appellate reversal is unavailable despite conceded double jeopardy error.
Kidder pleaded no contest to using a computer to seduce a child, traveling to meet a minor after such enticement, and attempted lewd and lascivious mo…
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 Direct Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Raymond Kidder appeals his judgment and sentences following his no contest plea to using a computer to seduce, solicit, or lure a child; traveling to meet a minor after using a computer to seduce, solicit, or lure a child; and attempted lewd and lascivious molestation of a child between twelve and eighteen by an individual less than eighteen. Mr. Kidder correctly argues that his convictions and sentences for using a computer to seduce, solicit, or lure a child under section 847.0135(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2013), and traveling to meet a minor after using a computer to seduce, solicit, or lure a child under section 847.0135(4)(b) violated the prohibition against double jeopardy. See State v. Shelley, 176 So.3d 914 (Fla. 2015); Mahar v. State, 190 So.3d 1123 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (following Shelley). The State concedes error, and Mr. Kidder and the State request that we reverse Mr. Kidder’s judgment and sentence for the soliciting offense, the lesser of the two offenses.
Because Mr. Kidder’s judgment and sentences were the result of a plea bargain, he is not entitled to the requested relief. See Novaton v. State, 634 So.2d 607, 609 (Fla. 1994). Accordingly, we affirm Mr. Kidder’s judgment and sentences without prejudice to any right he may have to pursue a claim for postconviction, relief related to the double jeopardy violation. See Tapp v. State, 44 So.3d 666, 667 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Weitz v. State, 795 So.2d 1021, 1022-23 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). We caution Mr. Kidder that such relief would result in the loss of the benefit of his plea bargain.
Affirmed.
MORRIS and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Novaton v. State, 634 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1994)
- State v. Shelley, 176 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 2015)
- Weitz v. State, 795 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Mahar v. State, 190 So. 3d 1123 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)
- Tapp v. State, 44 So. 3d 666 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)