Elsberry v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Elsberry v. State

201 So. 3d 1266, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 15950

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 26, 2016

DocketNo. 1D12-6093

StatusPublished

This text of 201 So. 3d 1266 (Elsberry 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

Elsberry v. State, 201 So. 3d 1266, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 15950 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This court previously affirmed appellant’s convictions and sentences for both use of a computer service to solicit a person believed to be a child to engage in unlawful sexual conduct in violation of section 847.0135(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2011), and for thereafter traveling to , meet a person believed to -be a child- in violation of section 847-.0135(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011). See Elsberry v. State, 130 So.3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). After issuance of that opinion, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that double- jeopardy principles prohibit separate convictions for solicitation and traveling based on the same conduct. State v. Shelley, 176 So.3d 914, 919 (Fla.2015), reh’g denied (Oct. 9, 2015).

In light of Shelley, the Florida Supreme Court quashed our opinion in Elsberry. See Elsberry v. State, No. SC14-322, 2016 WL 1669410 (Fla. Apr. 27, 2016). Therefore, in accordance with the mandate from the supreme: court, this cause is remanded to the trial court with instructions to vacate appellant’s conviction and sentence for the lesser-included offense of solicitation as prohibited by section 847.0135(3)(a).

REMANDED with instructions.

WOLF, BILBREY, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur. -

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

PER CURIAM.

This court previously affirmed appellant’s convictions and sentences for both use of a computer service to solicit a person believed to be a child to engage in unlawful sexual conduct in violation of section 847.0135(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2011), and for thereafter traveling to , meet a person believed to -be a child- in violation of section 847-.0135(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011). See Elsberry v. State, 130 So.3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). After issuance of that opinion, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that double- jeopardy principles prohibit separate convictions for solicitation and traveling based on the same conduct. State v. Shelley, 176 So.3d 914, 919 (Fla.2015), reh’g denied (Oct. 9, 2015).

In light of Shelley, the Florida Supreme Court quashed our opinion in Elsberry. See Elsberry v. State, No. SC14-322, 2016 WL 1669410 (Fla. Apr. 27, 2016). Therefore, in accordance with the mandate from the supreme: court, this cause is remanded to the trial court with instructions to vacate appellant’s conviction and sentence for the lesser-included offense of solicitation as prohibited by section 847.0135(3)(a).

REMANDED with instructions.

WOLF, BILBREY, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur. -

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 So. 3d 1266, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 15950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elsberry-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack