Johnston v. State
This text of 197 So. 3d 1094 (Johnston 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.
Opinion
Andrew Johnston appeals his judgments and sentences for traveling to seduce, solicit, or entice a minor for sex in violation of section 847.0135(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2013), and using a computer to seduce, solicit, or entice a minor for sex in violation of section 847.0135(3)(a). He argues, among other things, that a conviction and sentence for both offenses violates the prohibition against double jeopardy. The State agrees, conceding error in view of the Florida Supreme Court’s recent holding in State v. Shelley, 176 So.3d 914 (Fla.2015). See also Sang Youn Kim v. State, 154 So.3d 1168 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). We therefore affirm the section 847.0135(4)(a), traveling conviction and sentence, but vacate the lesser, section 847.0135(3)(a), soliciting conviction and sentence. See Shelley, 176 So.3d at 919. We have considered and reject all other arguments raised by Mr. Johnston.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED IN PART.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
197 So. 3d 1094, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 2946, 2016 WL 746194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnston-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.