William Kuckuck v. State
5D16-3828
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Dec 25, 2017Background
- FBI agent posed as a father on Craigslist seeking sexual activity with his minor daughters; Kuckuck responded and exchanged explicit messages on July 14 and July 15, 2016.
- July 14: Kuckuck solicited sexual conduct in online communications but no agreement to meet was reached that day.
- July 15: Kuckuck again solicited the "father," reached an agreement to meet the same day, traveled to the meeting location, and was arrested.
- The State charged two counts: (1) solicitation (alleged July 14) and (2) traveling after solicitation (alleged July 15).
- Jury convicted on both counts; the trial court later vacated the solicitation conviction on renewed double jeopardy grounds, reasoning it was subsumed by the traveling conviction.
- The State appealed the vacatur; the Fifth District reversed, holding the two convictions rested on distinct conduct and directing reinstatement of the solicitation conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the solicitation conviction violated double jeopardy when the defendant was also convicted of traveling after solicitation | State: Counts charged and proved separate acts on separate days; no double jeopardy because distinct conduct | Kuckuck: Solicitation and traveling stem from the same criminal course of conduct; conviction on solicitation is subsumed by traveling and violates double jeopardy | Reversed trial court: convictions are for separate acts on different days; no double jeopardy; reinstate solicitation conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Shelley, 176 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 2015) (holding solicitation may be subsumed by traveling after solicitation when based on same conduct)
- Griffith v. State, 208 So. 3d 1208 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (distinguishing Hughes where separate solicitation acts on different days avoid double jeopardy)
- Hughes v. State, 201 So. 3d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (found double jeopardy where initial solicitation included plan to travel and no further solicitation occurred)
- Lee v. State, 223 So. 3d 342 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (discussing complexity of double jeopardy jurisprudence in solicitation/travel cases)