Batchelor v. State, 193 So. 3d 1054

Batchelor responded to an online ad where an undercover officer posing as “Missy” claimed to seek a man to "show" her fictitious 13‑year‑old daughter about sex.
He communicated with the undercover officer, requested a photo of the fictional child, agreed to engage in sexual activity with her, and traveled 35–60 minutes to the sting location.
Upon arrival at the house, Batchelor texted to announce his presence and was arrested in the driveway.
A jury convicted Batchelor of: (1) traveling to meet a minor after soliciting a parent (§ 847.0135(4)(b)), (2) unlawful use of a two‑way communications device to facilitate a felony (§ 934.215), and (3) attempted lewd or lascivious battery on a child (§§ 800.04(4) & 777.04(1)).
On appeal Batchelor argued (a) insufficiency of the evidence to prove attempt and (b) double jeopardy because the communications‑device conviction was subsumed within the traveling/soliciting offense.
The Second District affirmed the convictions for traveling to meet a minor and attempted lewd battery, but vacated the conviction for unlawful use of a two‑way communications device.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Batchelor)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for attempted lewd or lascivious battery	Communications and travel to the meeting constituted an overt act beyond mere preparation, proving attempt.	Acts were only preparatory; not sufficiently proximate to consummation.	Affirmed — communications plus travel to the expected meeting place were sufficient to show an overt act toward commission of the offense.
Double jeopardy: convictions for traveling/soliciting parent and unlawful use of a two‑way communications device	The statutes have different elements; device use to facilitate any felony is not necessarily the same act as the online solicitation, so convictions can stand.	Device use was the exact means of committing the traveling/soliciting offense and the charges arose from the same criminal episode; convictions therefore violate double jeopardy.	Vacated the two‑way communications device conviction — where charging document and record do not show distinct acts separated in time/space, the device‑use proof was subsumed within the traveling/soliciting offense.

Enix v. State, 69 So. 3d 354 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (defines attempt elements).
State v. Coker, 452 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (distinguishes preparation from overt act).
Hudson v. State, 745 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (overt act found where defendant took steps to meet fictitious minor).
Mizner v. State, 154 So. 3d 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (device‑use element can be subsumed where both offenses require electronic communication).
Holt v. State, 173 So. 3d 1079 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (vacating device‑use conviction where charging documents did not allege distinct acts).
Bartee v. State, 401 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (time/space/transactional aspects determine whether acts are distinct).
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (same‑elements test for double jeopardy).