David K. Griffith v. State
208 So. 3d 1208
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Feb. 3–4, 2014, Griffith exchanged sexually explicit emails with an undercover detective posing as a 13‑year‑old on Craigslist; initial plan: meet the following Friday.
- On Feb. 4, after further emails, Griffith and the undercover detective agreed to meet that afternoon; Griffith arrived and was arrested.
- He was charged in a six‑count information; relevant here: count 1 — solicitation of a child via computer (Feb. 3); count 2 — traveling to meet a minor after solicitation (Feb. 4).
- Griffith entered an open (nolo contendere) plea and later appealed, arguing the two convictions violate double jeopardy.
- The State argued the Feb. 3 solicitation was distinct from the Feb. 4 solicitation/traveling; Griffith argued the conduct was continuous and the traveling conviction subsumed the solicitation charge.
- The trial record contained the email exchanges and timing; no double‑jeopardy discussion occurred at plea or sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether convictions for solicitation via computer and traveling to meet a minor violate double jeopardy | Griffith: the Feb. 3 and Feb. 4 communications were one continuous solicitation culminating in travel, so traveling subsumes solicitation | State: Feb. 3 solicitation tentatively set meeting for later; Feb. 4 was a new solicitation and separate travel — distinct conduct | Affirmed: convictions do not violate double jeopardy because the record shows separate, distinct acts on different days |
| Whether a double jeopardy claim may be raised after an open plea | Griffith: may raise on appeal because plea was general and double jeopardy is apparent on face of record | State: burden on appellant to show violation is apparent on face of record; otherwise claim forfeited | Court applied Novaton standard; Griffith failed to show an obvious violation on the face of the record, so claim rejected |
| Whether the face of the record establishes same‑conduct for double jeopardy | Griffith: record shows continuous plan from Feb. 3 through arrest on Feb. 4 | State: record shows plan changed and new negotiations on Feb. 4, indicating separate acts | Held: record supports State — Feb. 4 negotiations constituted a new solicitation and travel, not same conduct |
| Standard for resolving double jeopardy on appeal from undisputed facts | Griffith: de novo review should find single continuous offense | State: de novo review applies but appellant must demonstrate entitlement on face of record | Court reviewed de novo and determined facts did not show a same‑conduct violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Novaton v. State, 634 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1994) (standard for raising double jeopardy after a general plea)
- Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2007) (movant must show entitlement to relief on face of record for rule 3.800 claims)
- Callaway v. State, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1995) (double jeopardy resolution often requires factual inquiry beyond the face of the record)
- State v. Shelley, 176 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 2015) (traveling after solicitation subsumes solicitation if based on same conduct)
- Hughes v. State, 201 So. 3d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (dual convictions violated double jeopardy where solicitation and travel were same conduct)
- Matson v. Wilco Office Supply & Equip. Co., 541 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (record for appellate review consists of what trier of fact saw and heard)