Case ID: so3d_146/html/1289-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Demarquarius Deonte TRUITT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D13-4051.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Sept. 23, 2014.
    
      Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, M.J. Lord, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals his conviction and sentence for improper use of computer services in violation of section 847.0135(3), Florida Statutes, traveling to meet a minor in violation of section 847.0135(4), Florida Statutes, and unlawful use of a two-way communications device in violation of section 924.215, Florida Statutes. He raises eight issues on appeal. We affirm without comment as to all issues except one.

Addressing Appellant’s argument that his convictions for improper use of computer services to solicit a minor and traveling to meet the minor constitute double jeopardy, we affirm on authority of State v. Murphy, 124 So.3d 323, 330-31 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), in which this court held that dual convictions for solicitation of a minor and traveling to meet the minor do not violate double jeopardy because sections 847.0135(3) and (4) reflect a clear legislative intent to punish the offenses separately. Accord Griffis v. State, 133 So.3d 653 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Cantrell v. State, 132 So.3d 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Elsherry v. State, 130 So.3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). As this court did in Griffis, we acknowledge and certify a conflict on this issue with HaHley v. State, 129 So.3d 486 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).

AFFIRMED; CONFLICT CERTIFIED.

PADOVANO, THOMAS, and CLARK, JJ., concur.