Duclos-Lasnier v. State
192 So. 3d 1234
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Duclos-Laslnier met a 13-year-old girl (L.S.) through her godmother, obtained her phone number, and sent sexual text messages and explicit photos.
- L.S. deleted some texts but deputies recovered them; the texts included photos of a clothed groin and a naked penis apparently from Duclos-Laslnier.
- Deputies impersonated L.S. by text, obtained another explicit photo from Duclos-Laslnier, arranged a meeting at a coffee shop, and arrested him upon arrival.
- Duclos-Laslnier entered open guilty pleas to five counts but reserved the right to appeal denials of pretrial motions to dismiss.
- Trial court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms; on appeal the Second DCA affirmed convictions for traveling to solicit a minor, attempted lewd/lascivious battery, and two counts of transmitting harmful images, but vacated the solicitation-by-computer conviction on double jeopardy grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Duclos-Laslnier) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attempted lewd/lascivious battery (victim 12–15) can stand where defendant actually communicated with an adult officer posing as a minor | D argued victim could not be shown to be 12–15 because he was texting an adult; legal impossibility/age defense | State: Defendant intended to have sex with a minor and took overt acts toward that goal despite officer impersonation | Affirmed: Florida rejects legal impossibility; intent + overt acts suffice for attempt. |
| Whether defendant committed an overt act sufficient for criminal attempt | D: Acts were merely preparatory (texts/agreement) | State: Sending explicit photo and appearing at meeting manifest commitment beyond preparation | Affirmed: texting an explicit photo and appearing at the meet-up constituted overt acts. |
| Whether sending explicit photos via cellular text messages falls within statute prohibiting transmission of material harmful to minors by "electronic mail" | D: "Electronic mail" does not include SMS/texts; statute limited to email/Internet | State: Texts are electronic transmissions to a specific individual and fall within the statute's purpose/title | Affirmed: "Electronic mail" reasonably includes text messages; texting harmful images to minors violates the statute. |
| Whether convictions for solicitation by computer and traveling to seduce/solicit a minor based on same conduct violate double jeopardy | D: Dual convictions violate double jeopardy | State: (implicitly) both convictions supported | Reversed in part: Solicitation (count one) vacated as lesser-included; traveling (count two) affirmed; remand for corrected sentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. State, 745 So.2d 997 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (rejects legal-impossibility defense; focuses on intent and overt acts for attempt)
- Bist v. State, 35 So.3d 936 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (defines overt-act standard for criminal attempt)
- Simmons v. State, 944 So.2d 317 (Fla. 2006) (construed "electronic mail" to include instant electronic transmissions)
- Novaton v. State, 634 So.2d 607 (Fla. 1994) (double jeopardy issues apparent on the record can be raised despite guilty plea)
- Shelley v. State, 176 So.3d 914 (Fla. 2015) (dual convictions for solicitation and traveling based on same conduct violate double jeopardy)
- Pizzo v. State, 945 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 2006) (principles on vacating lesser offenses and affirming greater offenses under double jeopardy)