Joey Hughes v. State
201 So. 3d 1230
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Appellant Joey Hughes responded to an online ad and exchanged sexually explicit messages with an undercover detective posing as a 14‑year‑old over Feb. 3–4, 2014.
- Communications on Feb. 3 ended late evening with plans to text the next day; contact resumed Feb. 4 and arrangements were made to meet; Hughes was arrested at the meeting location.
- The State charged Hughes with (1) use of a computer to solicit a child (solicitation) and (2) traveling to meet a child after solicitation (traveling after solicitation).
- Hughes moved to dismiss on entrapment grounds; the trial court denied the motion. He pled nolo contendere to both counts, reserving the right to appeal the dismissal ruling.
- After sentencing, the Florida Supreme Court decided State v. Shelley regarding whether solicitation is subsumed by traveling after solicitation for double jeopardy purposes. The Fifth DCA applied Shelley to vacate Hughes’s solicitation conviction (the lesser offense) and remanded for possible resentencing on the traveling conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dual convictions for solicitation and traveling after solicitation violate double jeopardy | State: offenses are separate because solicitation and travel occurred on different days and represent distinct acts | Hughes: both convictions rest on the same conduct; traveling offense subsumes solicitation under Shelley | Court: Dual convictions violate double jeopardy; vacate solicitation conviction and remand for possible resentencing on traveling count |
| Whether the 17‑hour temporal gap renders the acts distinct | State: temporal gap separates the criminal acts | Hughes: the acts formed a single course of conduct despite the gap | Court: Gap insufficient to avoid double jeopardy given controlling precedents (Shelley and progeny) |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying entrapment dismissal | State: denial proper | Hughes: entrapment defenses asserted | Court: Affirmed denial of dispositive motion to dismiss (no change) |
| Remedy when dual convictions violate double jeopardy | State: unspecified | Hughes: seek relief for double jeopardy violation | Court: Vacate solicitation (lesser) conviction and remand to consider resentencing on traveling conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Shelley, 176 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 2015) (solicitation elements subsumed by traveling after solicitation; double jeopardy bars separate convictions)
- Mahar v. State, 190 So. 3d 1123 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (electronic communication one day, travel next day; applied Shelley to bar dual convictions)
- Hammel v. State, 934 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (temporal separation of electronic communications can affect double jeopardy analysis)
- Pinder v. State, 128 So. 3d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (no double jeopardy where evidence supported separate offenses spanning multiple days)
- Stapler v. State, 190 So. 3d 162 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (vacating the lesser solicitation conviction when dual convictions violate double jeopardy)