Michael R. Mills v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Michael R. Mills v. State

196 So. 3d 571, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 11514, 2016 WL 4064091

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 29, 2016

Docket5D14-2814

StatusPublished

This text of 196 So. 3d 571 (Michael R. Mills 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

Michael R. Mills v. State, 196 So. 3d 571, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 11514, 2016 WL 4064091 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Michael Roger Mills appeals the judgment and sentence entered against him after he was found guilty, by a jury, of soliciting a minor using a computer device, in violation of section 847.0135(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2013), unlawful use of a two-way communications device, in violation of section 934.215, Florida Statutes (2013), and traveling to meet a minor, in violation of section 847.0135(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2013). Mills raises a number of issues on appeal, however, only one warrants reversal: namely, that his convictions for soliciting a minor using a computer device and unlawful use of a two-way communication device violate double jeopardy principles because the elements to prove each are subsumed within the elements for traveling to meet a minor. Based on the facts of this case and the State’s concession of error, we agree with Mills and conclude that double jeopardy principles preclude separate convictions under section 847.0135(3)(a), section 934.215, and section 847.0135(4)(a). See State v. Shelley, 176 So.3d 914, 919 (Fla.2015); see also Holt v. State, 173 So.3d 1079; 1081-84 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). Accordingly, we reverse Mills’ convictions and vacate his sentences for soliciting a minor using a computer device and unlawful use of a two-way communication device. Finding no error in the remaining issues or that any error was harmless, we affirm in all other respects.

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED, in part.

PALMER, EVANDER and BERGER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Michael Roger Mills appeals the judgment and sentence entered against him after he was found guilty, by a jury, of soliciting a minor using a computer device, in violation of section 847.0135(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2013), unlawful use of a two-way communications device, in violation of section 934.215, Florida Statutes (2013), and traveling to meet a minor, in violation of section 847.0135(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2013). Mills raises a number of issues on appeal, however, only one warrants reversal: namely, that his convictions for soliciting a minor using a computer device and unlawful use of a two-way communication device violate double jeopardy principles because the elements to prove each are subsumed within the elements for traveling to meet a minor. Based on the facts of this case and the State’s concession of error, we agree with Mills and conclude that double jeopardy principles preclude separate convictions under section 847.0135(3)(a), section 934.215, and section 847.0135(4)(a). See State v. Shelley, 176 So.3d 914, 919 (Fla.2015); see also Holt v. State, 173 So.3d 1079; 1081-84 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). Accordingly, we reverse Mills’ convictions and vacate his sentences for soliciting a minor using a computer device and unlawful use of a two-way communication device. Finding no error in the remaining issues or that any error was harmless, we affirm in all other respects.

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED, in part.

PALMER, EVANDER and BERGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 So. 3d 571, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 11514, 2016 WL 4064091, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-r-mills-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack