Florida Supreme Court Creates New Standard for Double Jeopardy in Traveling and Solicitation Cases

October 23, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense Social Share

A major Florida Supreme Court decision established a new legal standard for evaluating if a defendant’s double jeopardy protections were violated in traveling to meet a minor and solicitation of a minor case.

In Florida, solicitation of a minor (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(3)), traveling to meet a minor (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(4)), and unlawful use of a two-way communications device (Fla. Stat. 934.215) are very serious felony offenses. These are often charged if someone is ensnared in a police sting where officers pretend to be minors (“decoys”) and communicate with people online.

Traveling to meet a minor for sexual activity is a second-degree felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Solicitation of a minor and unlawful use of a two-way device are each third-degree felonies, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

If someone is charged in Florida with traveling, solicitation, and unlawful use of a two-way communications device, there are two legal questions that are important to ask. The first of these is whether entrapment is available as a defense. This hinges upon whether someone solicited and traveled to meet an actual minor, or if it was an undercover police officer.

If an actual child was the victim, someone cannot legally argue they were entrapped. But if the alleged victim was not a minor at all (and instead, was a law enforcement officer), entrapment may be a viable defense to the charges – depending on the facts of the case.

There are two types of entrapment that may be argued in traveling/solicitation/unlawful use cases: objective and subjective. Objective entrapment focuses on the egregiousness of police conduct and is harder to prove. Subjective entrapment occurs when law enforcement induces a non-predisposed defendant to act criminally.

Subjective (statutory) entrapment (Fla. Stat. 777.201) is more commonly argued than objective entrapment in this category of cases, if the alleged victim was actually a police officer. For more on how the entrapment defense may be relied upon in a traveling/solicitation/unlawful use case in Florida, click here.

After asking the “entrapment question,” the next question to ask if someone is charged with traveling, solicitation and unlawful use of a two-way device is – do these charges violate the defendant’s double jeopardy protections? This is a key inquiry, as someone may not legally be punished twice for the same course of conduct without legislative authorization.

No such authorization from the Florida Legislature exists for traveling, solicitation, and unlawful use of a two-way communications device to be charged separately for the same conduct. Though it may initially not make sense why such authorization would even need to exist, this is because the elements of unlawful use and solicitation are subsumed by the elements of traveling.

In other words, someone cannot travel to meet a minor for sex (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(4)) without first soliciting the minor (or the person believed to be a minor) online. And doing so inherently requires the unlawful use of a two-way device (e.g. phone, computer). Thus, charging all three of these crimes for the “same course of conduct” violates double jeopardy.

The prohibition against double jeopardy is a core constitutional protection enshrined within the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment. Essentially, someone may not be charged or convicted more than once for the same course of criminal conduct. This famously applies to people who are found not guilty at trial – but also limits the number of charges that can be brought at trial.

So, when does charging solicitation and unlawful use of a two-way device on top of traveling to meet a minor violate a defendant’s double jeopardy rights? This key question was answered by the Florida Supreme Court in a major ruling, Lee v. State, 258 So. 3d 1297 (Fla. 2018). Let’s break it down.

Major Case: Lee v. State, 258 So. 3d 1297 (Fla. 2018)

In Lee, the defendant (Lee) was charged and convicted of solicitation of a minor online, unlawful use of a two-way communications device, and traveling to meet a minor. He was convicted on all three counts and sentenced. Lee appealed to Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal, the highest court in Tallahassee and North Florida, arguing his convictions violated double jeopardy.

The 1st DCA ruled against Lee and affirmed all of his convictions. The 1st DCA asked the correct legal question – whether Lee’s solicitation of a “minor” (actually an undercover officer), unlawful use, and traveling were separate courses of conduct (distinct acts) or the same course of conduct (e.g. one big criminal act). 

If the latter, Lee’s rights were violated by convictions of all three crimes as opposed to traveling alone. But the 1st DCA found after “examining the entire record, including all evidence admitted at trial,” Lee’s crimes were “separate criminal episodes and distinct criminal acts.” As a result, the 1st DCA affirmed the trial verdict.

Lee appealed that finding to the Florida Supreme Court, arguing that the information (charging document) in his case framed his acts as part of the same course of conduct. Because the State alleged that Lee’s traveling had taken place because of the solicitation of the “minor,” Lee argued that he was punished three times for the single offense of traveling to meet a minor. 

The Florida Supreme Court reversed the 1st DCA, holding that Lee could not be convicted of any offense other than traveling to meet a minor. The Court acknowledged that it was resolving the following dispute:

“The issue in this case is whether, in determining if 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 should consider only the charging document or the entire evidentiary record.”

The 1st DCA had considered the entire evidentiary record, rather than the charging document (which indicated Lee had engaged in one continuous course of conduct) in denying his appeal. The 1st DCA contradicted rulings from other Florida District Courts of Appeal that had held only the charging document must be looked at.

The Florida Supreme Court overruled the 1st DCA’s “evidentiary record” standard, codifying a new statewide rule that only the charging document must be evaluated: 

“Accordingly, we hold 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 should consider only the charging document—not the entire evidentiary record.”

The Court then moved into analyzing the facts of Lee’s case. It first cited its previous holding in State v. Shelley, 176 So.3d 914 (Fla. 2015) – which ruled traveling, solicitation, and unlawful use convictions for the same course of conduct constitute a double jeopardy violation. 

The Court evaluated whether Lee’s solicitation of the “minor” and unlawful use of a two-way device were separate and distinct from the traveling charge (traveling to meet a minor requires a solicitation to take place before traveling as an element of the crime). It found that the State’s charging document had not established different courses of criminal conduct:

“The information alleged that the traveling offense occurred ‘on or about January 2, 2014.’ The information alleged that the unlawful use of a two-way communications device and the solicitation offense occurred ‘on one or more occasions between December 22, 2013, and January 1, 2014.’”

“[T]he information does not make clear that the State relied on separate conduct to charge the offenses… ‘The information in this case did not allege distinct acts; the verdict form did not separate the acts; and the evidence presented to the jury could support, but did not require, the jury to find that the acts underlying Lee’s conviction were separate.’ Considering only the information, it is impossible to know whether the jury convicted Lee of all three offenses based on the same act of solicitation.”

The last statement is key. Unless the State specifically alleges in the charging document that solicitation was separate and distinct from the traveling charge, a conviction for both of these cannot be obtained. This is because, as the Court noted:

“Considering only the information, it is impossible to know whether the jury convicted Lee of all three offenses based on the same act of solicitation. ‘For all we know, jury deliberations ended when they found a [single] solicitation violation…’”

In other words, if Lee had solicited the “minor,” the minor agreed to meet, and Lee traveled as a result of that solicitation, this would be only one crime – traveling to meet a minor.

Again, this is because the elements of traveling (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(4)) are:

• The defendant used a computer, online service, internet service or electronic device (such as a phone or tablet) to communicate with another person
• During the communication, the defendant seduced, solicited, lured or enticed a child (under the age of 18) or someone believed to be a child to engage in unlawful sexual activity
• The defendant then traveled or attempted to travel to a location in Florida with the intent to meet the minor (or person believed to be a minor) for the purpose of unlawful sexual activity

Because of how the State worded the charging document in Lee’s case, the Court observed, he could have plausibly been convicted of both solicitation and traveling based on the same text. This is not permitted under Florida law – if solicitation is to also be charged, it must be from a distinct solicitation that did not result in the traveling.

In sum, Lee v. State is a significant decision in Florida cases involving alleged solicitation of a minor, traveling to meet a minor, and unlawful use of a two-way communications device. If these are all charged together for the “same course of criminal conduct,” a defendant’s double jeopardy rights have been violated.

In Lee, the Florida Supreme Court clarified that if this group of charges is brought (as opposed to just a traveling charge), it must make clear that one or more sexual solicitations occurred that did not directly lead to the defendant traveling. 

If this is not specifically alleged, multiple convictions violate double jeopardy. Florida defense attorneys should take note, as Lee may be a critical component of motions to dismiss solicitation and unlawful use charges before trial, if they’ve been wrongly paired with a traveling charge.

In the event someone is charged with a lewd or lascivious offense or charged with traveling to meet a minor, it is vital to seek out aggressive and experienced legal counsel as soon as possible. The attorneys at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting to win for clients across Florida.

Criminal Defense Attorney 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 lawyers at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting drug charges 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