Brandon Stapler v. State
190 So. 3d 162
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Stapler entered no-contest pleas to one count of solicitation (§ 847.0135(3)(b)) and one count of traveling after using a computer to solicit (§ 847.0135(4)(b)) based on communications with undercover officers and subsequent travel.
- He was sentenced to concurrent prison terms (84 months traveling; 60 months solicitation) followed by probation and adjudicated a sex offender.
- Stapler moved under rule 3.800(b) to strike standard sex-offender probation conditions; the trial court struck some conditions then reimposed several as special conditions.
- Stapler argued his dual convictions violated double-jeopardy principles because the solicitation was part of the same criminal episode that supported the traveling charge.
- The State contended multiple violations occurred and relied on prior precedent affirming multiple convictions when multiple solicitations were alleged and proven.
- The appellate court granted rehearing, held the solicitation conviction was a lesser-included offense of the traveling conviction as charged, reversed the solicitation conviction, affirmed other aspects, and remanded for resentencing and narrowing of an overbroad probation contact-with-minors condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dual convictions under §847.0135(3)(b) and §847.0135(4)(b) for the same conduct violate double jeopardy | Stapler: convicting on both offenses for the same conduct violates double jeopardy because solicitation is a lesser-included offense of traveling as charged | State: evidence showed multiple solicitations over time; multiple offenses supported both convictions (citing Pinder) | Reversed solicitation conviction; solicitation is a lesser-included offense of the traveling charge as charged here, so dual convictions violated double jeopardy |
| Whether a no-contest plea precludes the double-jeopardy appeal | State: plea waives many challenges | Stapler: plea was not part of a plea bargain and double-jeopardy error is apparent on the record so appeal preserved | Court considered the claim—plea did not bar review because plea was not a plea bargain and the double-jeopardy violation was apparent |
| Whether reimposing previously-struck sex-offender probation conditions violated double jeopardy | Stapler: reimposition enhanced probation conditions without proof of violation, violating double jeopardy | State: trial court may impose sex-offender conditions as special conditions if reasonably related to the offense | No double-jeopardy violation as to reimposition here; court found reimposed conditions were related and the order narrowed/struck others appropriately |
| Whether probation condition forbidding contact with minors was overbroad | Stapler: blanket ban is overly broad and captures innocent contact | State: condition justified by sex-offender status and offense details | Condition is overbroad; remanded to limit prohibition to intentional contact with minors without court approval |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Shelley, 176 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 2015) (holding convictions under both §847.0135(3)(b) and (4)(b) for the same conduct violate double jeopardy)
- Pinder v. State, 128 So. 3d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (affirming multiple convictions where multiple solicitations were alleged and proven over several days)
- Novaton v. State, 634 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1994) (standards when a plea does not preclude appeal of certain challenges)
- Agama v. State, 181 So. 3d 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (treating single charged episode as insufficient to support dual convictions under these subsections)
- Peacock v. State, 167 So. 3d 514 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (double-jeopardy principle limits enhancement of probation conditions absent proof of violation)
- Tellier v. State, 754 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (vacating a conviction may affect sentencing guidelines and requires resentencing)