A criminal defendant charged with “traveling to meet a minor” and “solicitation of a minor” will have one of his charges vacated according to a ruling by the Florida Supreme Court in Snow v. State.
According to a previously decided Supreme Court Case, State v. Shelly, 176 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 2015), double jeopardy applies when someone is convicted of separate charges arising out of the same conduct.
If you were convicted of multiple offenses arising out of the same course of conduct and that “extra” conviction led to “extra” punishment, it might be worthwhile to reach out to your criminal defense attorney to find out if you might be entitled to relief under this line of cases.
I dont know if anyone still follows this thread, but I contacted the head public defender in lake county and told him with his PD did, his response was I wish you the best of luck and it’s a conflict of interest for his office. This was after I told him about the double jeopardy laws his office allowed and ignored me to be charged and sentenced under along with several other inappropriate actions of his office. After a situation like this what else is there to do, because of all this getting money to clear my name is impossible. If any of us are lucky enough to get a job, then said employers treat you like crap. Like mine they have treated me as the worst employee and no pay raises for 4 years. Plus they destroyed my knee and just recently had to have back surgery from the treatment that I’m the only one to recieve. If I can ever clear my name, would lake county or florida be held accountable
Well, in 2006, I was convicted on two counts of possession of CP and sentenced under both counts. One for three years in prison and five years SO probation for the second count. How was that lawful?
Yes in some CP cases this would make a huge difference becasue some judges have given the max for every image resulting in sentences that were absolutely insane
I don’t suppose this would cover CP charges as well would it? There was a recent ruling, Losada v State, that led me to believe that possession charges would be prosecuted as one crime, not each individual picture/video. I can’t find anything to support this, other than that one case. Does anyone have some insight on this issue?
Barbara,
Since every case is different and FAC is not a law firm (and therefore not qualified to give legal advise) we are unable to answer this question about specific application, but whoever represented you (or the individual you are writing about) should be able to give you a an answer to that question hopefully without charging for it.
I understand you are not a law firm and I am not looking to devise a strategy. This is something I came across and was curious if anyone is aware of it.
We have not come across anything on point.
The point at issue in the Losada case was whether multiple images of CP could be charged as separate counts. The court ruled that it could not, saying, ” The court found that pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court’s “a/any” test, which is derived from Grappin v. State, 450 So.2d 480 (Fla.1984), and State v. Watts, 462 So.2d 813 (Fla.1985), the Florida Legislature did not specifically envision an image-by-image charging system for the Computer Pornography statute or the Transmission of Child Pornography statute.”
So Karen’s comment that Judges are sentencing separately for each image is incorrect.
However, at issue in the Supreme Court case in this post is “related conduct” which is two separate acts which are part of the same conduct, (soliciting and traveling to meet). You could not, technically, meet up with someone unless you solicited the meeting (unless both parties were psychic and knew to show up).
To the extent this decision would apply to CP would not relate, arguably, to the number of images (as that can’t be charged as a separate crime regardless), but separate courses of conduct relating to the same offense. On the federal end, they charge “receipt” and “possession” separately. You cannot be in possession of something without having received it (unless you produced the CP, in which case we’re talking about something far more heinous), so why would those two be separate charges?
This was a point that was taken up by the US Sentencing Commission since the middle of the last decade but to this date not resolved.
that explains why the state gives so many cp cases to the feds
Interesting to note. I originally had 2 charges. The Traveling to Meet, and Using a computer. Same 2 charges. The computer charge was dropped and I was only sentenced under the 1, traveling to meet. I always wondered about that, but now I know why. So the point is, I guess even the prosecutor in my case, knew about this and dropped the computer soliciting charge. Interesting
MJ, Since that was part of a plea deal i wounder if you could take that back into court and try and force another deal since it was illegal to be charged that way.
i have use of computer and attempted L&L although the hit list says L&L on child under 16 and not attempted
Thank you Concerned. I ran it by my attorney and he said since they dropped the computer charge before the plea deal, that everything was lawful. No matter what angle I take to try and get my case overturned, I get put down. It’s like they are just going to keep getting away with these illegal scam sting operations on Craigslist and other sites until some sweeping reform is brought about that exonerates all of us. I just don’t know what that could be or when or who will do it.
I got convicted in 2011 due to public defender telling me he isn’t going to help me. I was originally charged lewd and lascivious to under 16,travel to meet with use of computer and use of computer to lure minor. 3 charges.several months ago I looked it up again and it said attempt with parents permission. Now it says. Obscene communication with computer to meet,obscene communication to misrepresentation of my age and lewd and lascivious behavior by person over 18.I never said wrong age,and in email I only wanted to meet the milf. But they said I was intending to have a 3some.I was shafted the whole case.
That state should be able to be sued for purposely posting incorrect information. especially with serious hit list