Case Name: Nathan DYGART, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2019-05-13
Citations: 270 So. 3d 557
Docket Number: No. 1D13-4977
Parties: Nathan DYGART, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 270
Pages: 557–557

Head Matter:
Nathan DYGART, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 1D13-4977
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
May 13, 2019
Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Kathleen Stover, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Giselle D. Lylen, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This court earlier affirmed Dygart's convictions, concluding that there was no double-jeopardy violation. See Dygart v. State , 247 So. 3d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). The Florida Supreme Court has now quashed that decision, remanding for reconsideration based on the intervening decision in Lee v. State , 258 So. 3d 1297 (Fla. 2018). See Dygart v. State , 247 So.3d 655 (Fla. 2019).
In Lee , the Florida Supreme Court held "that to determine whether multiple convictions of solicitation of a minor, unlawful use of a two-way communications device, and traveling after solicitation of a minor are based upon the same conduct for purposes of double jeopardy, the reviewing court may consider only the charging document." Lee , 258 So. 3d at 1304. Looking only at the information in this case, we cannot conclude one way or the other whether the State based the two charged counts (one for solicitation and one for travel following solicitation) on the same solicitation. In this circumstance, Lee requires that we reverse the lesser conviction.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.
Winokur and Winsor, JJ., concur; Makar, J., concurs in result only.