State v. Shelley
Annotate this CaseDefendant was charged with a single violation of Fla. Stat. 847.0135(3)(b), which prohibits the use of a computer to solicit the consent of a parent or legal guardian of a child to engage in unlawful sexual conduct with the child, and a single violation of section 847.1035(4)(b), which prohibits traveling to meet a minor to engage in unlawful sexual conduct after using a computer to make a prohibited solicitation. The State relied upon the same conduct to charge both offenses. Defendant pleaded guilty. On appeal, the court of appeal vacated Defendant’s conviction and sentence of solicitation, concluding that Defendant’s convictions for solicitation and traveling after solicitation impermissibly placed him in double jeopardy because the Legislature had not explicitly stated its intent to allow separate convictions for these offenses based upon the same conduct and because solicitation is a lesser-included offense of traveling after solicitation. The Supreme Court approved the court of appeal’s decision, holding that Defendant’s dual convictions for solicitation and traveling after solicitation based upon the same conduct impermissibly placed him in double jeopardy.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.