Hamilton v. State, 1D13–5380.
Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Citation | 163 So.3d 1277 |
Docket Number | No. 1D13–5380.,1D13–5380. |
Parties | Alan Lynsdale HAMILTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Decision Date | 27 May 2015 |
163 So.3d 1277
Alan Lynsdale HAMILTON, Appellant
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 1D13–5380.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
May 27, 2015.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Richard M. Summa, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Justin D. Chapman, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Alan Hamilton raises four issues on appeal. We find merit only in his claim that convictions for traveling to meet a minor under section 847.0135(4), Florida Statutes (2013), and unlawful use of a two-way communications device under section 934.215, Florida Statutes (2013), violate double jeopardy, and therefore vacate his judgment and sentence for unlawful use of a two-way communications device. We affirm appellant's conviction for traveling to meet a minor in case no. 12–CF–2256 and his other convictions in case nos. 12–CF–2740, 12–CF–2788, and 12–CF–3347, but remand for resentencing on a scoresheet that reflects his conviction for unlawful use of a two-way communications device has been vacated.
The evidence at appellant's non-jury trial showed that, over three to four days in May of 2012, appellant used his cell phone to communicate with an undercover law enforcement officer, who was posing as a 14–year–old girl named Jessica. After expressing his wish to engage in sexual conduct to Jessica via text messages, appellant arranged to meet Jessica at a bowling alley. On May 4, 2012, appellant drove his vehicle to the bowling alley, approached an undercover officer, and was arrested.
Appellant argues his dual convictions violate double jeopardy because the elements of the offense of unlawful use of a two-way communications device are subsumed within the elements of the offense of traveling to meet a minor, and both offenses occurred within the same criminal episode. The Second District passed upon the same question in Mizner v. State, 154 So.3d 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). In Mizner, the court analyzed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lee v. State
...Lee, but write to address only one. He argues that the decisions in State v. Shelley , 176 So.3d 914 (Fla. 2015), and Hamilton v. State , 163 So.3d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), compel reversal of two of his convictions on double jeopardy grounds. The State seeks review of the trial court's dep......
-
Dettle v. State
...communications device was subsumed within the proof of the soliciting and traveling offenses in this case.’ " Hamilton v. State, 163 So.3d 1277, 1278 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (quoting Mizner v. State, 154 So.3d 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) ); see also Batchelor v. State, 193 So.3d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 20......
-
Lee v. State
...device does not contain any elements that are distinct from the offense of traveling to meet a minor." Hamilton v. State, 163 So. 3d 1277, 1279 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). Likewise, in Mizner v. State, 154 So. 3d 391, 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014), dual convictions for unlawful use and traveling to meet ......
-
Dettle v. State, CASE NO.: 1D14-1382
...communications device was subsumed within the proof of the soliciting and traveling offenses in this case.'" Hamilton v. State, 163 So. 3d 1277, 1278 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (quoting Mizner v. State, 154 So. 3d 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)); see also Batchelor v. State, 193 So. 3d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2......