Demarquarius Deonte Truitt v. State of Florida

146 So. 3d 1289
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 22, 2014·No. 1D13-4051·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals his conviction and sentence for improper use of computer services in violation of section 847.0135(3), Florida Statutes, traveling to meet a minor in violation of section 847.0135(4), Florida Statutes, and unlawful use of a two-way communications device in violation of section 924.215, Florida Statutes. He raises eight issues on appeal. We affirm without comment as to all issues except one.

Addressing Appellant’s argument that his convictions for improper use of computer services to solicit a minor and traveling to meet the minor constitute double jeopardy, we affirm on authority of State v. Murphy, 124 So.3d 323, 330-31 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), in which this court held that dual convictions for solicitation of a minor and traveling to meet the minor do not violate double jeopardy because sections 847.0135(3) and (4) reflect a clear legislative intent to punish the offenses separately. Accord Griffis v. State, 133 So.3d 653 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Cantrell v. State, 132 So.3d 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Elsherry v. State, 130 So.3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). As this court did in Griffis, we acknowledge and certify a conflict on this issue with HaHley v. State, 129 So.3d 486 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).

AFFIRMED; CONFLICT CERTIFIED.

PADOVANO, THOMAS, and CLARK, JJ., concur.

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

Demarquarius Deonte Truitt v. State of Florida, 146 So. 3d 1289 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

146 So. 3d 1289 (Demarquarius Deonte Truitt v. State of Florida) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Demarquarius Deonte Truitt v. State of Florida
194 So. 3d 586 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Jared Snow v. State of Florida
157 So. 3d 559 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)