Meythaler v. State
175 So. 3d 918
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- On Feb 15, 2013, detectives posed as teenage females on Craigslist; Meythaler responded and was told the purported ages (14 and 15).
- Further communications led to plans to meet on March 18; when Meythaler arrived he texted that they would have sex — earlier messages had not been sexual.
- Meythaler was charged with (1) using a computer to seduce/solicit/entice a minor (section 847.0135(3)(a)) and (2) traveling to seduce/solicit/entice a minor after using a computer (section 847.0135(4)(a)).
- He moved to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds but did not obtain a ruling; he entered a no-contest plea while reserving the right to appeal the double jeopardy issue.
- The State suggested the computer communications occurred on a different day than the travel, but did not amend the charging information to allege separate dates.
- The Second District applied the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Shelley and related authority to conclude the two convictions (based on the same conduct) violated double jeopardy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether convictions for both using a computer to solicit a minor and traveling after solicitation (based on the same conduct) violate double jeopardy | The State argued the offenses were distinct because the computer communications and the travel occurred on different days | Meythaler argued the offenses arise from the same conduct and the solicitation elements are subsumed by the traveling-after-solicitation offense | The court held double jeopardy barred separate convictions based on the same conduct; affirmed traveling conviction and vacated solicitation conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (same-elements test for double jeopardy)
- Valdes v. State, 3 So. 3d 1067 (Fla. 2009) (Legislative intent controls permissibility of multiple punishments)
- Kim v. State, 154 So. 3d 1168 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (applies Shelley analysis to §§ 847.0135(3)(a) and (4)(a))
- Hartley v. State, 129 So. 3d 486 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (separate computer-solicitation counts may be supported by communications on different days)
- Smith v. State, 973 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (conditions for raising double jeopardy on appeal after a general plea)
- Novaton v. State, 634 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1994) (same)