Does Charging Online Solicitation and Traveling to Meet a Minor Violate Double Jeopardy in Florida?

May 19, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Sex Crimes Social Share

If someone is charged with both online solicitation of a minor and traveling to meet a minor for sexual activity under Fla. Stat. Section 847.0135, a common observation is that the elements of the solicitation charge are entirely subsumed by the elements of the traveling charge. This raises the question – does charging someone with both offenses violate their protection against double jeopardy? This article will explore these crimes and answer that important question.

Fla. Stat. Section 847.0135 makes online solicitation of a minor and traveling to meet a minor for sexual activity distinct crimes, each of which is considered a third-degree felony. A third-degree felony is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

For someone to be found guilty of online solicitation of a minor under Fla. Stat. Section 847.0135, the following elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt: 

• The defendant knowingly used a computer online service, Internet service, local bulletin board service, device capable of electronic data storage or transmission to contact the victim

• The victim was a child or a person the defendant believed to be a child
• During that contact, the defendant seduced, solicited, lured, or enticed a minor, or attempted to do so, to commit any illegal sexual act

For someone to be found guilty of traveling to meet a minor for sexual activity, the following must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt: 

• The defendant knowingly used a computer online service, Internet service, local bulletin board service, device capable of electronic data storage or transmission to contact the victim

• The victim was a child or a person the defendant believed to be a child
• During that contact, the defendant seduced, solicited, lured, or enticed a minor, or attempted to do so, to commit any illegal sexual act
• The defendant then traveled, attempted to travel, caused another to travel, attempted to cause another to travel within Florida for the purpose of unlawful sexual conduct with the child or person believed to be a child

All of the elements of online solicitation are contained within the elements for traveling. Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Blockburger v. U.S., this means that charging someone with both solicitation and traveling violates their protection against double jeopardy. Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932).

Florida’s courts have consistently applied the Blockburger test – which asks whether the elements of one charged offense are entirely subsumed by the elements of another – in finding that solicitation and traveling charges for the same course of conduct violates double jeopardy. 

This was officially announced by the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Shelley. State v. Shelley, 176 So.3d 914 (Fla. 2015). The Shelley court ruled that if charges for both online solicitation and traveling to meet a minor stem from a single course of conduct, the solicitation charge is subsumed by the traveling charge and cannot be brought separately.

Critically, however, this does not mean that solicitation charges can never be brought alongside a traveling charge. This is permissible if the court determines that the solicitation and traveling were separate and distinct criminal acts. 

Florida’s courts generally use a “totality of the circumstances” test to determine whether solicitations were separate and distinct criminal acts. Factors courts rely on include “whether there are multiple victims, whether the offenses occurred in multiple locations, and whether there has been a ‘temporal break’ between offenses.” McCarter v. State, 204 So.3d 529 (Fla 1st DCA 2016).

While there is not a bright line rule defining when solicitation and traveling are one “course of conduct,” Florida’s courts have developed a corpus of case law surrounding this question. If online solicitation and traveling to meet a minor occur on the same day, Florida courts generally view charging both crimes as a double jeopardy violation. Holt v. State, 173 So.3d 1079 (Fla. 2015).

However, just because the conduct happened over the course of multiple days, does not mean solicitation and traveling can both be charged. In Hughes v. State, the appellant engaged in an online chat with an undercover police officer he believed to be a minor over the course of two days, then traveled to meet her for sex and was arrested. 

The court held that even though the conduct did not occur on the same day, the acts were not “separate and distinct” – rendering the online solicitation and traveling charges against Hughes a double jeopardy violation. Hughes v. State, 201 So.3d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).

Florida’s courts have allowed solicitation and traveling charges to be brought jointly when the defendant commits multiple, distinct solicitations – one of which specifically produces an agreement to travel for sex. In Kuckuck, the court upheld dual convictions for solicitation and traveling on that basis. 

The court distinguished Kuckuck’s case from Hughes, as although two separate solicitations also occurred in Hughes – the second in Kuckuck produced an agreement to travel. This fact made the second solicitation “separate and distinct” from the first, as it was not only made on a different day, but with the intent of creating an agreement to travel for sex. Kuckuck v. State, 232 So.3d 530 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). 

In sum, charging online solicitation of a minor and traveling to meet a minor under Fla. Stat. Section 847.0135 is often a double jeopardy violation. However, this depends on whether the solicitation and traveling are separate and distinct criminal acts, or part of the same course of conduct. Factors courts use to determine this include:

• Whether there are multiple victims
• Whether the solicitations occurred in multiple locations
• Whether there has been a “temporal break” between offenses (the longer a break, the more likely the solicitation and traveling can be seen as separate courses of conduct)

If someone is concerned about a case involving alleged solicitation of a minor and traveling to meet a minor, it is crucial to find experienced and aggressive legal representation as soon as possible. This vital decision could make the difference in whether or not a person is subject to a lengthy prison term and hefty fines.

Sex Crime Defense Lawyer in Tallahassee, FL

Don Pumphrey, Jr. is a Former Prosecutor, Former State Police Officer, Lifetime Member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; for over 25 years as a private defense attorney who is Trusted, Experienced, Aggressive in Criminal Defense as a Trial Attorney, Criminal Lawyer, Criminal Defense Lawyer for the accused in Florida State Courts located in Tallahassee, Florida but handling cases throughout the State of Florida.

Don Pumphrey, Jr. and the Tallahassee criminal defense attorneys at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting on behalf of clients and winning. Call Pumphrey Law now at (850) 681-7777 to learn more about what we can do for you. Our lawyers will be happy to provide you with a free consultation.

  Social Share