Chepelevich v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Chepelevich v. State

184 So. 3d 1138, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 15178, 2015 WL 5946849

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 14, 2015

Docket2D13-6219

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 184 So. 3d 1138 (Chepelevich v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chepelevich v. State, 184 So. 3d 1138, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 15178, 2015 WL 5946849 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

CRENSHAW, Judge.

Christopher Chepelevich challenges his convictions for use of a computer to solicit a child for unlawful sexual activity as criminalized by section 847.0135(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2012), and traveling to meet a child for the purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual activity as criminalized by section 847.0135(4)(a), on the grounds that they violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. 1 “[D]ual convictions for solicitation and traveling after solicitation based upon the same conduct impermissibly place [the defendant] in double jeopar-dy_” State v. Shelley, 176 So.3d 914, (Fla. June 25, 2015). Because his dual convictions were based upon the same conduct, they violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. See Sang Youn Kim v. State, 154 So.3d 1168, 1169-70 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence for traveling and vacate the conviction and sentence for soliciting as the soliciting offense is subsumed by the traveling offense. Id. at 1170.

Affirmed in part and vacated in part.

KELLY and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.

1

. We reject Chepelevich’s other argument raised on appeal without further discussion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CRENSHAW, Judge.

Christopher Chepelevich challenges his convictions for use of a computer to solicit a child for unlawful sexual activity as criminalized by section 847.0135(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2012), and traveling to meet a child for the purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual activity as criminalized by section 847.0135(4)(a), on the grounds that they violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. 1 “[D]ual convictions for solicitation and traveling after solicitation based upon the same conduct impermissibly place [the defendant] in double jeopar-dy_” State v. Shelley, 176 So.3d 914, (Fla. June 25, 2015). Because his dual convictions were based upon the same conduct, they violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. See Sang Youn Kim v. State, 154 So.3d 1168, 1169-70 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence for traveling and vacate the conviction and sentence for soliciting as the soliciting offense is subsumed by the traveling offense. Id. at 1170.

Affirmed in part and vacated in part.

KELLY and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.

1

. We reject Chepelevich’s other argument raised on appeal without further discussion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 So. 3d 1138, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 15178, 2015 WL 5946849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chepelevich-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack