Johnston v. State

197 So. 3d 1094, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 2946, 2016 WL 746194
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Johnston v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16711
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 26, 2016·No. No. 1D14-4074·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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.

THOMAS, OSTERHAUS, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

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

Johnston v. State, 197 So. 3d 1094, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 2946, 2016 WL 746194 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

197 So. 3d 1094 (Johnston v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sang Youn Kim v. State
154 So. 3d 1168 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
State of Florida v. Dean Alden Shelley
176 So. 3d 914 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2015)