Exantus v. State
198 So. 3d 1
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Exantus appeals an order withholding adjudication and placing him on probation after a jury trial.
- Counts at issue are 1 (traveling to meet a minor), 3 (receiving information about a minor), and 4 (unlawful use of a two-way communications device) all arising from the same episode.
- The Florida Second District vacates counts 3 and 4 for double jeopardy because they are subsumed by count 1.
- The court preserves counts 1 and 2 (presumably the traveling and related charges) and vacates 3 and 4.
- The court discusses legislative intent and Blockburger analysis, and certifies conflict with State v. Murphy on the legislative-intent question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy as to counts 3 and 4 | Exantus argues counts 3–4 punished the same episode as count 1 | State argues separate statutory offenses permit multiple punishments | Counts 3 and 4 vacated; counts 1–2 affirmed; conflict certified |
Key Cases Cited
- Binns v. State, 979 So.2d 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (denotes standard for reviewing double jeopardy claims on undisputed facts)
- Shelley v. State, 134 So.3d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (regarding legislative intent to authorize multiple punishments under 847.0135(3)(b) vs (4)(b))
- Hartley v. State, 129 So.3d 486 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (elements of traveling to meet a minor; receiving information subsumed by traveling)
- State v. Murphy, 124 So.3d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (dual convictions for solicitation and traveling not per se barred by double jeopardy)