Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): a minor, in violation of section 847.0135, Florida Statutes (2012) (Count 2); using a .two-way communications device to facilitate or further the commission of a felony, in violation of section 934.215, Florida Statutes (2012) (Count 3); and attempting to engage in sexual activity with a child twelve years of age or older but less than sixteen years of age, in violation of sections 800.04(4) and 777.04(1), Florida Statutes (2012) (Count 4). On appeal, Rubio argues that the trial court erred in denying his motions to dismiss all counts based on entrapment and in denying his motion to dismiss Count 4 based on legal impossibility. He also argues for the first time that the prohibition against double jeopardy precluded his adjudication and sentencing on both Counts 2 and 3. 1st DCA 2017) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we reverse Rubio’s conviction 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the dismissal of criminal charges for evidentiary insufficiency is an acquittal for purposes of the double jeopardy clause (B) holding that examination of separate criminal episodes for double jeopardy purposes should encompass entire evidentiary record rather than just charging document and verdict form (C) holding that civil forfeitures are neither punishment nor criminal for purposes of the double jeopardy clause (D) holding that a delinquency proceeding places a juvenile in jeopardy for purposes of the double jeopardy clause (E) holding that the double jeopardy clause did not bar charging the defendant with both receipt and possession of child pornography where the defendant was charged with possessing a set of files that did not form the basis for a separate receipt count
Output (English): holding that civil forfeitures are neither punishment nor criminal for purposes of the double jeopardy clause