Holt v. State
173 So. 3d 1079
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Christopher Holt communicated on an Internet-dating site, believed he was talking to a 13-year-old, exchanged texts, and traveled to meet the purported minor for sex; the "minor" was an undercover detective and Holt was arrested at the meeting point.
- Charged with: (1) using a computer to seduce/solicit/lure a child (later dismissed), (2) unlawful use of a two-way communications device to commit a felony (§ 934.215), and (3) traveling to meet a minor after using a computer to solicit a child (§ 847.0135(4)(a)).
- Trial by jury produced convictions on counts (2) and (3); Holt appealed both convictions (first issue affirmed without comment).
- On appeal Holt argued the two convictions violate double jeopardy because they arose from the same criminal episode and the elements of the two-way-communications offense are subsumed by the traveling-to-meet-minor offense.
- The charging information and verdict forms alleged both offenses occurred “on or about March 14, 2013,” without alleging distinct acts, so the court treated them as same criminal episode.
- Court analyzed legislative intent and applied the Blockburger test (section 775.021(4) codifying Blockburger) and concluded the two-way-communications offense is subsumed by the traveling-to-meet-minor offense; therefore double jeopardy barred the dual convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether convictions under §847.0135(4)(a) (traveling to meet a minor) and §934.215 (use of two-way communications device) violate double jeopardy | Holt: dual convictions arise from the same criminal episode and §934.215 is subsumed within §847.0135(4)(a) so Blockburger is not satisfied | State: legislative intent (via §847.0135(8)) permits dual prosecution/convictions; offenses are distinct | Court: Vacated §934.215 conviction; affirmed §847.0135(4)(a). Found §934.215 elements are subsumed by §847.0135(4)(a) and §847.0135(8) does not clearly authorize dual convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (established test for whether two offenses are the same for double jeopardy)
- Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333 (legislative intent controls whether separate punishments are authorized)
- Valdes v. State, 3 So.3d 1067 (when intent unclear use Blockburger; need clear legislative statement to authorize dual punishments)
- Gordon v. State, 744 So.2d 1112 (Blockburger inquiry and intent analysis summarized)
- Mizner v. State, 154 So.3d 391 (same-criminal-episode treatment when charging documents do not allege distinct acts)
- Partch v. State, 43 So.3d 758 (same principle regarding charging distinct acts)
- Hartley v. State, 129 So.3d 486 (elements of traveling-to-meet-minor offense explained)
- Hardy v. State, 705 So.2d 979 (remedy for double jeopardy violation: vacate lesser offense and affirm greater)
- Barnett v. State, 159 So.3d 922 (district court discussion of §847.0135(8) and dual convictions)