258 So. 3d 1297
Fla.2018Background
- Lee placed a Craigslist ad seeking a male under 25; an undercover investigator identified himself as a 14‑year‑old and engaged Lee in electronic communications in which Lee solicited sexual acts.
- Lee traveled to a meeting location and was arrested; he was charged with three counts: traveling to meet a minor to engage in sexual conduct, unlawful use of a two‑way communications device to facilitate a felony, and using a computer to solicit a child.
- The information alleged the traveling offense on or about January 2, 2014, and the communications/solicitation counts on one or more occasions between December 22, 2013 and January 1, 2014.
- The jury convicted Lee of all three counts "as charged in the Information." Lee argued the convictions violated double jeopardy because the lesser offenses were subsumed by the traveling offense.
- The First District affirmed after examining the entire evidentiary record and concluding the convictions arose from distinct acts; the State Supreme Court granted review to resolve a conflict among districts about whether courts may consider the full trial record or only the charging document when assessing "same conduct" double jeopardy claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a reviewing court should consider only the charging document or the entire evidentiary record to determine if multiple convictions are based on the same conduct for double jeopardy purposes | Lee: convictions arose from the same conduct as charged; double jeopardy bars multiple convictions when the charging document does not allege separate acts | State/First DCA: the court may examine the entire evidentiary record to determine whether convictions rest on distinct acts | Held: Only the charging document (and verdict form) may be considered; if the information does not specify separate acts, convictions based on the same conduct violate double jeopardy; vacated the solicitation and two‑way device convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Shelley v. State, 176 So.3d 914 (Fla. 2015) (dual convictions for solicitation and traveling after solicitation based on the same conduct violate double jeopardy)
- Valdes v. State, 3 So.3d 1067 (Fla. 2009) (Blockburger/same‑elements framework and legislative intent analysis)
- Mizner v. State, 154 So.3d 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (vacating soliciting and related convictions where charging document spanned the same period and did not allege distinct acts)
- Pizzo v. State, 945 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 2006) (when dual convictions are impermissible, reverse the lesser and affirm the greater)