Elsberry v. State, 1D12–6093.
| Decision Date | 04 February 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D12–6093.,1D12–6093. |
| Citation | 130 So.3d 798 |
| Parties | Dustin ELSBERRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County. James C. Hankinson, Judge.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Megan Long, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Angela R. Hensel, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Appellant was convicted and sentenced for using a computer service to solicit a person believed to be a child to engage in unlawful sexual conduct, and for thereafter traveling for the purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual conduct with a person believed to be a child. See§ 847.0135(3)(a), (4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011). Appellant raises three issues on appeal. We affirm as to all issues and briefly discuss one.
Appellant asserts that his convictions for both charges arising out of the same criminal transaction violate double jeopardy. This court previously held that separate convictions for use of a computer service to solicit someone believed to be the parent of a child to engage in unlawful sexual conduct with the child, and thereafter traveling for the purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual conduct with the child, as prohibited by subsections 847.0135(3)(b) and (4)(b), did not violate double jeopardy. See State v. Murphy, 124 So.3d 323, 330–31 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). We find no meaningful distinction for the purpose of double jeopardy analysis between violations of those subsections and the subsections for which appellant was convicted. We, therefore, find Murphy to be controlling. We do, however, certify conflict with the decisions of Hartley v. State, 129 So.3d 486 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), and Pinder v. State, 128 So.3d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Snow v. State
...Statutes, reflect a clear legislative intent to punish the offenses separately. This holding has been reaffirmed in Elsberry v. State, 130 So.3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) ; Cantrell v. State, 132 So.3d 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) ; 157 So.3d 561Griffis v. State, 133 So.3d 653 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) ......
-
Seo v. State, 1D12–3179.
...DCA 2014); Griffis v. State, 133 So.3d 653 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Cantrell v. State, 132 So.3d 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Elsberry v. State, 130 So.3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). 3. The officer portraying Maddy testified she was “almost positive” that she had placed the ad to which Mr. Seo respond......
-
State v. Davis
...prohibitions against double jeopardy. On this “degree variant” issue, we are bound by our prior decision in Elsberry v. State, 130 So.3d 798, 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), which extended the holding in State v. Murphy, 124 So.3d at 330, to the specific statutory subsections at issue here. See al......
-
Dygart v. State, 1D13–4977.
...CURIAM.We affirm based on Hernandez v. State, 135 So.3d 352, 355 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). We are also bound by Elsberry v. State, 130 So.3d 798, 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (citing State v. Murphy, 124 So.3d 323, 330–31 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) ), in which we held that dual convictions for violation of ......