State v. Murphy
124 So. 3d 323
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Murphy was charged with two felonies under Fla. Stat. § 847.0135(3)(b) and (4)(b) for soliciting a parent to consent to sexual conduct with a child and traveling to meet a minor after using a computer service, based on an undercover Craigslist operation.
- An officer posed as the girl's father and posted an ad; Murphy responded and engaged in email exchanges over several hours.
- The parties planned Murphy’s arrival at a location to have sexual activity with a 14-year-old girl, leading to his convictions after a jury trial.
- Murphy and the State cross-appealed: Murphy challenged acquittal, entrapment, and double jeopardy; the State challenged the downward departure from the minimum sentence.
- The trial court sentenced Murphy to nine months in jail and five years’ sex-offender probation, with adjudication withheld and concurrent terms, departing downward from the score-sheet minimum.
- The State argued the downward departure relied on invalid and valid mitigating factors; Murphy argued the undercover operation constituted objective entrapment and the offenses were dou ble jeopardy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient evidence of solicitation? | Murphy | Murphy | Solicitation upheld; evidence shows luring/enticing the father into allowing sex with the child. |
| Does the undercover operation create objective entrapment? | Murphy | Murphy | No objective entrapment; operation not egregious under standard; government action permissible. |
| Does double jeopardy prohibit separate sentences for solicitation and traveling to meet a minor after solicitation? | Murphy | Murphy | No double jeopardy violation; separate offenses foresee separate punishments. |
| Is the downward departure from the score-sheet minimum warranted? | State | Murphy | affirmed; at least one factor supported departure and court did not abuse discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Randall v. State, 919 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (mere statements of intent to commit acts not solicitation)
- Stumpf v. State, 677 So.2d 1298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (threats to commit acts not solicitation)
- Munoz v. State, 629 So.2d 90 (Fla. 1993) (objective entrapment framework)
- Bist v. State, 35 So.3d 936 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (outrageous conduct not shown; sting context)
- State v. Holsey, 908 So.2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (undercover initiator not valid basis for departure)
- State v. Grant, 912 So.2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (undercover conduct and departure standards)
- Banks v. State, 732 So.2d 1065 (Fla. 1999) (reasonableness of departure decisions; totality of circumstances)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (same-elements test for multiple punishments)