Florida's 5th DCA says no separate charges for same conduct.
The Fifth District Court of Appeals last week reinforced a Florida Supreme Court ruling made last year that found “Double Jeopardy principles prohibit separate convictions based on the same conduct.”
In the instant case (Huges v. Florida), the defendant was convicted and sentenced for “soliciting” and “traveling” (to meet a minor) arising from an incident where he received a response from a detective pretending to be a 14 year old girl, to a “casual encounters” listing on Craigslist and then subsequently traveling to meet her.
The 5th DCA found that Appellant’s dual convictions for solicitation and traveling after solicitation violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. They reverse and remand, instructing the trial court to vacate Hughes’ conviction and sentence for solicitation.
The government argued that the “solicitation” took place on one day and the “traveling” happened the next day and should therefore be separate events. The Appellate Court said no.
How will this affect CP cases? According to F.S. 827.071(5)(a) ”The possession, control, or intentional viewing of each such photograph, motion picture, exhibition, show, image, data, computer depiction, representation, or presentation is a separate offense.
If such photograph, motion picture, exhibition, show, representation, image, data, computer depiction, or other presentation includes sexual conduct by more than one child, then each such child in each such photograph, motion picture, exhibition, show, representation, image, data, computer depiction, or other presentation that is knowingly possessed, controlled, or intentionally viewed is a separate offense.”
I am wondering the same thing. Does anyone know?
Same thing immediately popped into my mind also
if you accepted a plea deal i think this is a moot point unless you could go back to court and invalidate the plea deal due to this
Speaking of CP charges something else that I have questioned often is that there are several FL laws that designate age. For example, I believe the living restriction only applies to those whose victim was 16 or younger (something like that) but what about CP charges? They apply all restrictions to people convicted of Cp and yet Cp is defined as any sexual picture of those under 18. So why are they required to validate the age (or at least approx.) ages of victims? Instead they just lump all all CP convictions together. It could make a huge difference in someone’s life if they did not have to worry about where they can live.