MATTHEW JOSEPH DETTLE, 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 convictions for traveling to meet a minor after solicitation and for using a two-way communications device in the commission of a felony violate double jeopardy under the facts presented. However, convictions for soliciting a minor and using a device for separate illegal acts are affirmed.
Appellant was convicted of traveling to meet a minor after solicitation and for using a two-way communications device in the commission of a felony. 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 Criminal Punishment Code Scoresheet cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant raises -five issues on appeal, only one of which has merit. Based on our recent opinion in Hamilton v. State, 163 So.3d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), we find that Appellant’s convictions for both traveling to meet a minor after solicitation, in violation of section 847.0135(4)(a), Florida Statutes, and for use of a two-way communications device in the commission of a felony, in violation of section 934.215, Florida Statutes, violate double jeopardy under the facts of this case. See also Holt v. State, 173 So.3d 1079 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); Holubek v. State, 173 So.3d 1114 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).1
We affirm Appellant’s convictions for travelling to meet a minor after using a computer to solicit the minor, under section 847.0135(4) and for using a computer or other device capable of electronic data storage to solicit a person believed to be a child to commit an illegal act, in violation of section 847.0135(3)(a), Florida Statutes, because the illegal acts solicited are separate illegal acts in this case. Accordingly, this case is distinguished from State v. Shelley, 176 So.3d 914 (Fla.2015), where the illegal acts solicited from the supposed minor were the same. We vacate the conviction and sentence for violation of section 934.215 and remand for correction of the criminal punishment code scoresheet and resentencing with the corrected score-sheet.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with instructions.
BENTON, LEWIS, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dettle v. State, 384 So. 3d 742 (Fla. 2024)…under the facts of this case,” Dettle's simultaneous convictions for traveling to meet a minor after solicitation, and for unlawful use of a two-way communications device, violated the prohibition against double jeopardy. Dettle v. State (Dettle I), 218 So. 3d 910, 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). So the court vacated the latter conviction. But it affirmed Dettle's remaining two convictions “because the illegal acts solicited [were] separate illegal acts in this case.” Id. at 910 (distinguishing State v. Shelley, 176…
-
Dettle v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)…ight against double jeopardy; but every decision affecting a constitutional right does not automatically make the decision retroactive. Notably, Dettle successfully argued on direct appeal that a double jeopardy violation occurred, Dettle v. State, 218 So. 3d 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016), but he did not pursue supreme court review on his Shelley/Lee issue despite the then-existing conflict among the districts, which Lee resolved. See Dettle v. State, 226 So. 3d 285 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (Bilbrey, J., dissenting fr…
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)
- Holubek v. State, 173 So. 3d 1114 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)