State v. Lee

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Lee

135 So. 3d 373, 2014 WL 258668, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 745

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 24, 2014

DocketNo. 5D12-4793

StatusPublished

This text of 135 So. 3d 373 (State v. Lee) 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

State v. Lee, 135 So. 3d 373, 2014 WL 258668, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 745 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

EVANDER, J.

The State appeals the trial court’s order granting Michael Lee’s motion to dismiss the amended information that charged him with attempting to solicit a minor for sexual activity using an electronic device or internet server,¹ and traveling to meet a minor for unlawful sexual activity after first using an electronic device or internet service to attempt to solicit the minor.² We reverse.

The trial court granted Lee’s dismissal motion based on Lee’s argument that a defendant could not be convicted under the statute unless there was direct communication between the defendant and a child or person believed by the defendant to be a child. We recently rejected this argument in State v. Wilson, 128 So.3d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). For the reasons articulated in Wilson, we reverse the instant order, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

COHEN and WALLIS, JJ., concur.

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

EVANDER, J.

The State appeals the trial court’s order granting Michael Lee’s motion to dismiss the amended information that charged him with attempting to solicit a minor for sexual activity using an electronic device or internet server,¹ and traveling to meet a minor for unlawful sexual activity after first using an electronic device or internet service to attempt to solicit the minor.² We reverse.

The trial court granted Lee’s dismissal motion based on Lee’s argument that a defendant could not be convicted under the statute unless there was direct communication between the defendant and a child or person believed by the defendant to be a child. We recently rejected this argument in State v. Wilson, 128 So.3d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). For the reasons articulated in Wilson, we reverse the instant order, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

COHEN and WALLIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 So. 3d 373, 2014 WL 258668, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lee-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack