Barnett v. State
159 So. 3d 922
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Barnett charged by amended information with four counts: I travel to meet a minor for unlawful sexual conduct; II and III use a computer to solicit unlawful sexual conduct; IV attempted lewd/lascivious battery.
- Evidence shows Oct 24, 2012 solicitation to a fictitious 14-year-old via electronic communications; Oct 26, 2012 meeting arranged and Barnett arrested at location.
- Police found three condoms and sexual-enhancement pills in Barnett's vehicle.
- Trial court sentenced Counts I, II, and IV; Count III was not sentenced due to double jeopardy concerns.
- Court previously recognized, in Pinder, Hartley, Shelley, that double jeopardy may limit concurrent convictions where offenses share elements, but may allow multiple punishments for separate uses of a computer service.
- This appeal concerns whether double jeopardy precludes the Count III solicitation conviction and related statutory interpretation of 847.0135(3) and (4).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does double jeopardy preclude Count III (solicitation on Oct 26) | Barnett; separate acts charged justify separate offenses | State; multiple punishments allowed where separate uses/episodes occur | Yes; Count III vacated under double jeopardy. |
| Is Count II (solicitation on Oct 24) valid given a temporal break from Oct 26 acts | Barnett; timed solicitations are part of a single course | State; temporal separation supports separate offenses | Yes; Count II sustained due to temporal break. |
| Does 847.0135(8) authorize dual convictions for 3(a)/4(a) in a single episode | Barnett; 8 permits separate convictions for overlapping acts | State; 8 authorizes convictions together regardless of overlap | No; 8 does not authorize dual convictions for a single episode; align Hartley/Shelley. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pinder v. State, 128 So.3d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (double jeopardy limits overlapping solicitations with travel to meet a minor)
- Hartley v. State, 129 So.3d 486 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (solicitation convictions may be separate where there are time separations between acts)
- Shelley v. State, 134 So.3d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA) (convictions for solicitation and traveling may be upheld when separate uses of devices occur)
- State v. Murphy, 124 So.3d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (presented contrary view on dual convictions under 847.0135(3) and (4))