Shelley v. State
134 So. 3d 1138
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Shelley arranged via electronic communications to have sex with a fictitious ten-year-old child after responding to a Craigslist ad and was arrested at the meeting point.
- He pled guilty to two offenses: soliciting a parent’s consent to a child’s participation in sexual conduct and traveling to meet a minor after such solicitation.
- Shelley challenges the denial of his motions to dismiss on both prima facie and double jeopardy grounds.
- The trial court denied the motions; the court reviewed whether the undisputed facts established a prima facie case and whether dual convictions violated double jeopardy.
- The court concludes the soliciting offense is subsumed by the traveling offense for double jeopardy purposes and vacates the soliciting conviction while affirming the traveling conviction, with conflict certified with a sister district’s decision.
- The court also discusses the statutory language, legislative intent, and applicable Blockburger analysis to resolve the double jeopardy issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie sufficiency of evidence | Shelley argues undisputed facts do not show actual contact or belief of contacting a child | State argues the statute does not require actual contact and the facts suffice | Prima facie case proper; trial court should not dismiss |
| Double jeopardy for soliciting and traveling | Soliciting and traveling are separate offenses; multiple punishments intended | State argues separate punishments allowed; no explicit intent required | Soliciting subsumed by traveling; vacate soliciting; affirm traveling; conflict certified |
Key Cases Cited
- Hartley v. State, 129 So.3d 486 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (solicitation on date can exist even if plans were set earlier)
- State v. Murphy, 124 So.3d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (soliciting by parent’s consent cannot be avoided by officer posing as parent)
- Pizzo v. State, 945 So.2d 1203 (Fla.2006) (double jeopardy remedy is vacatur of subsumed offense)
- Valdes v. State, 3 So.3d 1067 (Fla.2009) (Blockburger analysis for multiple punishments)
- M.P. v. State, 682 So.2d 79 (Fla.1996) (explicit legislative intent to allow multiple punishments when stated)
- Pinder v. State, 128 So.3d 141 (Fla.5th DCA 2018) (soliciting offense contains no element beyond traveling offense)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (definitive test for whether offenses are separate)