Holt v. State

Citations: 173 So. 3d 1079; 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 12029; 2015 WL 4768997Docket: No. 5D14-3269

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; August 14, 2015; Florida; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Christopher Holt was convicted of two charges: traveling to meet a minor and unlawful use of a two-way communications device, following a jury trial where a third charge was dismissed. Holt appealed the convictions, raising two issues, with the first issue affirmed by the court without further comment. For the second issue, Holt claimed that both convictions violated double jeopardy, as they stemmed from a single criminal episode and the elements of the unlawful use of a communications device were included within the elements of traveling to meet a minor.

The court agreed with Holt, vacating the conviction for unlawful use of a communications device. The events leading to the charges occurred on March 14, 2013, when Holt, believing he was communicating with a 13-year-old, arranged to meet for sex. The "minor" was a detective, and Holt was arrested at the meeting location.

The court emphasized that double jeopardy claims based on undisputed facts are reviewed de novo. Although Holt did not raise the double jeopardy issue in trial court, it constitutes fundamental error and can be raised on appeal. The charging documents did not indicate that the offenses were based on separate acts, leading the court to conclude they were part of a single episode. The determination of whether the legislature intended for separate punishments for the two offenses involves the Blockburger test, which assesses if each offense contains unique elements. Since the court found that the two charges did not meet this criterion, it held that double jeopardy principles barred the separate convictions.

Section 847.0135(4) of the Florida Statutes criminalizes traveling to meet a minor for sexual purposes after online solicitation. Offenders can be charged if they: (1) knowingly travel within or across state lines; (2) intend to commit illegal acts (as defined in chapters 794, 800, or 827) with a minor; (3) engage with a victim believed to be a child; and (4) attempt to seduce or solicit the minor. This constitutes a second-degree felony. Additionally, Section 934.215 makes it a third-degree felony to use a two-way communications device to facilitate any felony. The elements include: (1) use of such a device; and (2) intent to further a felony. Courts have determined that the offense of using a communications device is encompassed within the offense of traveling to meet a minor, meaning they do not satisfy the Blockburger test for distinct offenses. However, legislative intent may allow for dual convictions under these statutes without violating double jeopardy principles, as indicated by case precedents.

Section 847.0135(8) does not explicitly authorize dual convictions under itself and other statutes, nor does its legislative history indicate such intent. The 2007 amendment to this section clarified that prosecution for offenses under section 847.0135 does not prevent prosecution for other violations, but it lacks language permitting dual convictions or addressing double jeopardy. The primary focus of subsection (8) is on the prosecution's effects rather than convictions. Legislative intent requires "specific, clear and precise statements" to support dual convictions, which are absent here. The legislative history suggests dual prosecutions are permitted, but not necessarily dual convictions. 

In reviewing case law, it was concluded that dual convictions under section 847.0135(4)(a) and section 934.215 violate the Blockburger test for double jeopardy, constituting fundamental error. Consequently, the court affirmed the conviction for traveling to meet a minor while vacating the conviction for the use of a two-way communications device. This decision aligns with the precedent that the remedy for double jeopardy violations is to vacate the lesser offense while affirming the greater. The court also retracted its earlier dicta from Barnett v. State, which implied otherwise.