How Does A Plea Deal Impact Double Jeopardy? North FL’s Highest Court Discusses

March 5, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense Social Share

Case Summary

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal ruled that although the charging document in a traveling and solicitation of a minor case may have violated a defendant’s constitutional protection against double jeopardy, the defendant forfeited this argument when he took a plea deal.

• CASE: Newcombe v. State, 292 So.3d 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)
• Charge(s): Solicitation of a Minor/Traveling to Meet a Minor
• Outcome: Defendant’s guilty plea AFFIRMED despite double jeopardy violation concerns, as the defendant stipulated to a factual basis for both charges.

Solicitation of a Minor

In Florida, solicitation of a minor (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(3)) and traveling to meet a minor (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(4)) are very serious felony offenses. For someone to be guilty of solicitation of a minor (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(3)), the State must prove all of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

• The defendant knowingly used a computer, online service, internet service, local bulletin board service or any device capable of electronic data transmission
• The defendant used the device to seduce, solicit, lure or entice a minor (under 18) or person believed to be a minor (e.g. undercover law enforcement) to engage in sexual activity (or attempted to do so)

Solicitation of a minor is a third-degree felony in Florida, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. To learn more, click here.

For someone to be guilty of traveling to meet a minor for unlawful sexual activity, the State must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(4)):

• The defendant knowingly used a computer, online service, internet service, local bulletin board service or any device capable of electronic data transmission
• The defendant used the device to seduce, solicit, lure or entice a minor (under 18) or person believed to be a minor to engage in sexual activity (or attempted to do so)
• After that solicitation, the defendant then traveled or attempted to travel within Florida to meet the minor (or person believed to be a minor) to engage in unlawful sexual activity

Traveling to meet a minor is a second-degree felony in Florida, punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. For more on this, click here.

If someone is charged with solicitation and traveling to meet a minor, there is a serious risk that their protection against double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is being violated. This is because the elements of solicitation are entirely subsumed by (contained within) the elements of traveling to meet a minor. For more, click here.

Since solicitation is part of the crime of traveling to meet a minor, courts are required to dismiss a solicitation charge on double jeopardy grounds if it is not clearly a separate solicitation from the one that led to the traveling. If the same solicitation of a minor supports both charges, this is automatically a double jeopardy violation. Kuckuck v. State, 232 So. 3d 530 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)

The Florida Supreme Court has concluded that if solicitation and traveling charges stem from the “same course of criminal conduct,” charges (as well as convictions and punishments) for both of these crimes is violative of the defendant’s rights. Depending on when the issue is identified, the following remedies apply (Hartley v. State, 129 So.3d 486 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)):

• Before trial: If a defendant identifies that they are being charged with solicitation and traveling for the same course of conduct (e.g. the solicitation that serves as the basis for the solicitation charge is not clearly distinct from the solicitation that serves as the basis for the traveling charge), they are entitled to pretrial dismissal of the solicitation charge. Lee v. State, 258 So. 3d 1297 (Fla. 2018)
• During trial: If the defense moves during trial to dismiss the solicitation charge pursuant to double jeopardy concerns (e.g. motion for judgment of acquittal), the judge must grant the motion if the charges stem from the same course of conduct.
• Post-trial/on appeal: Any conviction or punishment for solicitation alongside traveling that arises from the same course of conduct must be vacated. State v. Shelley, 176 So.3d 914 (Fla. 2015)

Factors courts use to evaluate whether solicitation and traveling stem from the same course of criminal conduct include (Littleman v. State, 222 So.3d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)):

• Whether the offenses occurred on the same day (automatically considered the same course of conduct if the same victim and different solicitations are not identified in the charging document, per Meythaler v. State, 175 So.3d 918 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2015))
• Whether the offenses involved the same or different victims
• Whether there was a temporal break (gap) between the solicitation(s) and the traveling
• Whether the solicitation that serves as the basis for the solicitation charge is obviously distinguishable (different) from the one that serves as the basis for the traveling charge (THIS IS CRITICAL)

This analysis is directly relevant if a defendant goes to trial. But what happens if someone pleads guilty or no contest (nolo contendere) to solicitation of a minor AND traveling to meet a minor charges that appear to violate double jeopardy (e.g. are seemingly based on the “same course of conduct”)?

Florida’s courts are consistent that double jeopardy violations, if a defendant was convicted and sentenced, require appellate courts to intervene and reverse the lesser conviction and sentence (Shelley). 

However, what if the defendant pleads to the charges before a double jeopardy argument is ever raised? In a solicitation and traveling to meet a minor case, does this waive a defendant’s double jeopardy violation argument on appeal – even when a defendant is:

• Punished for both offenses, and 
• Those offenses may have stemmed from the same course of conduct?

According to Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal (Tallahassee and North FL’s highest court), the answer is yes. A defendant waives a claim of a double jeopardy violation on appeal in a solicitation and traveling case if they plead guilty or no contest to the offenses – even when they are punished (e.g. sentenced) for each offense.

Let’s look at the case that concluded this – Newcombe v. State, 292 So.3d 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) – and discuss how it may influence case strategy in solicitation and traveling to meet a minor cases in Florida.

KEY CASE: Newcombe v. State, 292 So.3d 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)

In Newcombe, the defendant (Newcombe) pled no contest (nolo contendere) to unlawful use of a computer service to solicit a minor (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(3)) and traveling to meet a minor for sex (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(4)). He was sentenced to 5 years in prison and 15 years of probation (e.g. punished for both offenses).

Newcombe appealed the legality of his sentence to the 1st DCA. Newcombe cited Lee v. State, 258 So. 3d 1297 (Fla. 2018), arguing that the trial judge sentenced him twice for the same course of conduct. Since this violated his constitutional protection against double jeopardy, Newcombe argued, he was entitled to resentencing on only the traveling charge.

But despite the fact that the charging document accused Newcombe of solicitation and traveling on the same day (ordinarily a double jeopardy violation as a matter of law, per Meythaler), the 1st DCA affirmed Newcome’s plea and sentence for both offenses. 

Distinguishing dual punishments that follow a trial at which the defendant is adjudicated guilty of solicitation and traveling from Newcombe’s case, the 1st DCA held that because Newcombe did not move to dismiss the solicitation charge before pleading no contest to both counts, he waived the double jeopardy issue when he pled and was sentenced. The 1st DCA wrote:

“We conclude that Newcombe is not entitled to post-conviction relief because his decision to enter a plea agreement differs from the situations in Lee, which was based on jury verdict founded upon a charging document limited to one count of solicitation and one count of traveling after solicitation. The problem in Lee was that the jury’s dual convictions for solicitation and traveling after solicitation were not based on separate and distinct counts of solicitation in the charging document. Similarly, in State v. Shelley, 176 So. 3d 914, 919 (Fla. 2015), Shelley’s dual convictions for solicitation and traveling after solicitation were not based on separate and distinct counts of solicitation in the charging document.”

Finding that Newcombe essentially conceded that he committed more than one solicitation of the alleged minor by pleading no contest to the pair of charges (multiple solicitations are necessary to avoid a double jeopardy violation), the 1st DCA held:

“In contrast, although Newcombe faced the same type of two-count information (one solicitation count and one traveling count) as in Lee and Shelley, the basis for his plea negotiations was broader than just the charging document. It included not only the charging document but also information about potential solicitations that could have been charged, such as those mentioned in the probable cause affidavit, but were not. Unlike the situation in Lee, where only charged conduct is allowable at trial, plea negotiations are not so limited and can be based on relevant but uncharged information. In the context of plea negotiations, the charging document need not be as strictly constructed as to those counts that might form the basis for a double jeopardy violation. Here, for instance, the charging document could have been drafted more broadly to include two or more solicitation counts, making it likely that Newcombe was willing to enter a plea as to the one count of solicitation and the one count of traveling presented, and that he accepted that a factual basis existed for doing so, as the trial judge noted. Affirmed.”

Put simply, even though a pretrial motion to dismiss the solicitation count based on the charging document’s ambiguity may have worked in Newcombe’s case, he effectively conceded “relevant but uncharged” information supported both charges (traveling and solicitation) when he took the plea. Because he stipulated to a factual basis for the plea, it was not tossed out by the 1st DCA.

Note: Judge Brad Thomas of the 1st DCA wrote a concurring opinion in Newcombe – in which he criticized Lee’s rule that defendants are entitled to a dismissal of a solicitation charge before trial if they are accused of solicitation of a minor and traveling to meet a minor (even if it stems from the “same course of conduct”). For more, click here.

In sum, Newcombe v. State, 292 So.3d 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) is a significant development in Florida’s corpus of case law surrounding double jeopardy principles in solicitation of a minor (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(3)) and traveling to meet a minor (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(4)) cases. The 1st DCA (Tallahassee and North FL’s highest court) found that:

• Newcombe pled no contest (nolo contendere) to charges of solicitation and traveling to meet a minor that stemmed from the same day and victim 
• This would ordinarily be considered the “same course of conduct” – so Newcombe’s constitutional protection against double jeopardy would be violated if there was no plea (e.g. a trial occurred) and he was sentenced on both counts
• However, by pleading no contest, Newcombe stipulated that there was a factual basis to support both counts he was charged with
• As a result, he waived the double jeopardy issue by agreeing the solicitation that served as the basis for the solicitation of a minor charge was different from the one that served as the basis for the traveling charge
• This required affirmance of his plea and sentence, as there was no double jeopardy issue

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Newcombe v. State, 292 So.3d 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020), as it makes clear that a double jeopardy analysis changes when someone takes a plea and concedes the existence of a factual basis to support all charges against them.

If someone is arrested and formally charged in Florida in a case and has a potential entrapment defense, it is critical to find experienced and trusted legal representation as soon as possible. This decision could make the difference in whether or not someone faces a lengthy prison term and hefty fines.

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 criminal 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