Doom v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Doom v. State

153 So. 3d 382, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 20375, 2014 WL 7156815

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 17, 2014

Docket2D13-4223

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 153 So. 3d 382 (Doom 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

Doom v. State, 153 So. 3d 382, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 20375, 2014 WL 7156815 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

Karl Doom appeals following his no contest plea to use of a computer to solicit sex with a minor and to traveling to meet a minor for sex, both crimes alleged to have occurred on the same date. The dual convictions violated the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. Accordingly, we reverse the conviction and sentence for use of a computer to solicit sex with a minor.

Doom raises the double jeopardy violation as a matter of fundamental error. He relies on this court’s decision in Shelley v. State, 134 So.3d 1138, 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, No. SC14-755, 2014 WL 3360176 (Fla. July 1, 2014), in which we held that “dual convictions for soliciting and traveling in the course of one criminal transaction or episode violate the prohibition against double jeopardy.”

The State maintains that Shelley was . incorrectly decided, and it additionally argues that double jeopardy was not violated in this case because there were multiple communications that could have been charged as multiple counts. But this argument was also rejected in Shelley. See id. at 1141-42 (“The State only charged one use of computer devices to solicit, and that charge was based on a solicitation occurring on the same date as the travelling offense. We find no legal basis to deny a double jeopardy challenge based on uncharged conduct simply because it could have been charged.”). Here, the State charged that both the solicitation and the traveling offenses occurred on February 9, 2013, thus bringing this case within the rule announced in Shelley. As we did in Shelley, we certify conflict with State v. Murphy, 124 So.3d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

Traveling conviction affirmed; soliciting conviction and sentence reversed; conflict certified.

LaROSE and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

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

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

Karl Doom appeals following his no contest plea to use of a computer to solicit sex with a minor and to traveling to meet a minor for sex, both crimes alleged to have occurred on the same date. The dual convictions violated the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. Accordingly, we reverse the conviction and sentence for use of a computer to solicit sex with a minor.

Doom raises the double jeopardy violation as a matter of fundamental error. He relies on this court’s decision in Shelley v. State, 134 So.3d 1138, 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA), review granted, No. SC14-755, 2014 WL 3360176 (Fla. July 1, 2014), in which we held that “dual convictions for soliciting and traveling in the course of one criminal transaction or episode violate the prohibition against double jeopardy.”

The State maintains that Shelley was . incorrectly decided, and it additionally argues that double jeopardy was not violated in this case because there were multiple communications that could have been charged as multiple counts. But this argument was also rejected in Shelley. See id. at 1141-42 (“The State only charged one use of computer devices to solicit, and that charge was based on a solicitation occurring on the same date as the travelling offense. We find no legal basis to deny a double jeopardy challenge based on uncharged conduct simply because it could have been charged.”). Here, the State charged that both the solicitation and the traveling offenses occurred on February 9, 2013, thus bringing this case within the rule announced in Shelley. As we did in Shelley, we certify conflict with State v. Murphy, 124 So.3d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

Traveling conviction affirmed; soliciting conviction and sentence reversed; conflict certified.

LaROSE and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 So. 3d 382, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 20375, 2014 WL 7156815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doom-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack