Thomas Murphy v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Thomas Murphy v. State of Florida

215 So. 3d 168, 2017 WL 1201900, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 4477

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 31, 2017

DocketCASE NO. 1D12-4514, CASE NO. 1D12-4810

StatusPublished

This text of 215 So. 3d 168 (Thomas Murphy v. State of Florida) 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

Thomas Murphy v. State of Florida, 215 So. 3d 168, 2017 WL 1201900, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 4477 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

PER CURIAM.

This court previously affirmed Thomas Murphy’s convictions and sentences for use of a computer service to solicit a person believed to be the parent of a child to engage in unlawful sexual conduct with a person believed to be a child in violation of section 847.0135(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2011), and for thereafter traveling for the purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual conduct with a person believed to be a child in violation of section 847.0135(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2011). See State v. Murphy, 124 So.3d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). 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).

In light of Shelley, the Florida Supreme Court quashed our opinion in Murphy. See Murphy v. State, No. SC13-2068, 2016 WL 1668953 (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 Murphy’s conviction and sentence for the lesser-included offense of solicitation as prohibited by section 847.0135(3)(b).

REMANDED with instructions.

LEWIS, OSTERHAUS, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.

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

ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

PER CURIAM.

This court previously affirmed Thomas Murphy’s convictions and sentences for use of a computer service to solicit a person believed to be the parent of a child to engage in unlawful sexual conduct with a person believed to be a child in violation of section 847.0135(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2011), and for thereafter traveling for the purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual conduct with a person believed to be a child in violation of section 847.0135(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2011). See State v. Murphy, 124 So.3d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). 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).

In light of Shelley, the Florida Supreme Court quashed our opinion in Murphy. See Murphy v. State, No. SC13-2068, 2016 WL 1668953 (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 Murphy’s conviction and sentence for the lesser-included offense of solicitation as prohibited by section 847.0135(3)(b).

REMANDED with instructions.

LEWIS, OSTERHAUS, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 So. 3d 168, 2017 WL 1201900, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 4477, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-murphy-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack