Hartley v. State
129 So. 3d 486
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Appellant Daniel Hartley was convicted on three counts of using a computer to solicit a minor and one count of traveling to meet a minor for unlawful sexual conduct under Florida Statutes § 847.0135(3)&(4) (2011).
- The alleged solicitations occurred on separate days: November 2, 2011 (Count I), November 3, 2011 (Count II), and November 4, 2011 (Count III); Count IV involved traveling to meet on November 4, 2011.
- A detective posed as a 14-year-old on Craigslist and responded to Hartley’s communications with impôsed age-related content, ultimately meeting him and arresting him.
- Hartley admitted in a videotaped statement that the conversation included sexual context and that his Craigslist ad lacked a legal age, describing the encounter as a ‘bad mistake.’
- Hartley moved for judgment of acquittal on counts I, III (and IV), which the trial court denied; he was ultimately sentenced to concurrent 7-year terms on Counts I–III and a 10-year probation term on Count IV.
- On appeal, the court held Count III violated double jeopardy and vacated it, remanding for resentencing on Counts I and II, while Count IV’s conviction and sentence were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for counts I and III | Hartley argues no explicit sexual intent shown on Nov. 2 and 4. | Hartley contends texts were consistent with non-sexual conduct. | Sufficiency affirmed; jury could infer solicitation from context and timing. |
| Double jeopardy the merger of counts III and IV | Counts I–III subsumed by Count IV; multiples violate double jeopardy. | Temporal separation allows multiple offenses; no merger with Count IV. | Count III vacated; Counts I–II remain; Count IV affirmed; remanded for resentencing on I–II. |
| Remand and sentencing consequences | Resentencing required for a correct scoresheet after vacating Count III. | No need to redo Count IV sentence; only I–II scoresheet issue. | Remand for resentencing on Counts I and II; Count IV affirmed; no resentencing for Count IV. |
Key Cases Cited
- Durousseau v. State, 55 So.3d 543 (Fla.2010) (de novo standard for sufficiency of the evidence in judgment of acquittal)
- Grohs v. State, 944 So.2d 450 (Fla.4th DCA 2006) (jury may infer intent from surrounding circumstances)
- Hammel v. State, 934 So.2d 634 (Fla.2d DCA 2006) (temporal breaks between computer-based offenses affect double jeopardy analysis)
- In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases-Report No. 2008-08, 6 So.3d 574 (Fla.2009) (standard jury elements for evaluating solicitation and travel-to-meet offenses)
- Fasenmyer v. State, 457 So.2d 1361 (Fla.1984) (scoresheet considerations in resentencing)