MALCOLM WATKINS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Malcolm Watkins appeals his convictions for child solicitation, traveling to meet a minor, attempted lewd battery, and unlawful use of a two-way communications device. The court finds that the convictions for traveling to meet a minor and unlawful use of a two-way communications device violate double jeopardy principles and reverses one conviction while affirming the others.
The court held that the convictions for both traveling to meet a minor and unlawful use of a two-way communications device violate double jeopardy because the proof required for the two-way communications device offense is entirely subsumed within the proof required for the traveling offense, and both offenses were committed as part of the same criminal episode. Therefore, the conviction for unlawful use of a two-way communications device was reversed and remanded for vacation.
[1] Double jeopardy protection is violated when a defendant is convicted of two offenses arising from the same criminal episode where the proof of one offense is entirely sub…
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 intelligenceWatkins was convicted of four offenses: using a computer to solicit a child for unlawful sexual activity, traveling to meet a child for unlawful sexua…
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 Subsumed Offenses cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Malcolm Watkins appeals his judgment and sentences for (1) use of a computer to solicit a child for unlawful sexual activity in violation of section 847.0135(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2010); (2) traveling to meet a child for the purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual activity in violation of section 847.0135(4)(b); (3) attempted lewd battery on a child in violation of sections 800.04(4) and 777.04, Florida Statutes (2010); and (4) unlawful use of a two-way communications device in violation of section 934.215, Florida Statutes (2010). Of the several claims Watkins raises, we find merit only to the claim that convictions for both traveling to meet a minor and unlawful use of a two-way communications device violate double jeopardy. "[P]roof of the unlawful use of a two-way communications device [is] subsumed within the proof of the . . . traveling offense[]," Batchelor v. State, 193 So. 3d 1054, 1058 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (quoting Mizner v. State, 154 So. 3d 391, 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)), and "there is no indication in the record that these two crimes were committed other than as part of the same criminal episode," Bermudez v. State, No. 15-4361, 2018 WL 560369 at *1 (Fla. 2d DCA Jan. 26, 2018). Because one of the two offenses Watkins was convicted of was entirely proven by the other, and the record shows that Watkins had committed both offenses during the same criminal episode, convictions for both offenses violated double jeopardy. See Chepelevich v. State, 184 So. 3d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). As such, we reverse and remand for the trial court to vacate Watkins' judgment and sentence for unlawful use of a two-way communications device. We affirm all other claims raised in this appeal.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
CASANUEVA, CRENSHAW, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mizner v. State, 154 So. 3d 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
- Batchelor v. State, 193 So. 3d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)
- Darius Duquan Bussey v. State, 184 So. 3d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)
- Chepelevich v. State, 184 So. 3d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)
- Bermudez v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
- Wirth v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)