That state should be able to be sued for purposely posting incorrect information. especially with serious hit list

that explains why the state gives so many cp cases to the feds

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.

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.

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.

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.

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