Major FL Court: Expressing ‘Intent’ or ‘Desire’ to Commit Sex Act is Not Solicitation

February 9, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Sex Crimes Social Share

Florida’s 5th District Court of Appeal ruled that a defendant who expressed his ‘intent’ or ‘desire’ to perform an unlawful sex act on a minor, did not solicit him as a matter of law.

In Florida, solicitation of a minor (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(3)) is a very serious offense. For someone to be guilty, 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 to engage in sexual activity (or attempted to do so)

Solicitation of a minor is considered a third-degree felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Additional potential penalties include sex offender registration, which you can learn about here.

Occasionally, someone may face a traveling to meet a minor charge (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(4)) alongside a solicitation charge. This is quite common when a person is ensnared in a police sting, in which undercover officers represent themselves as minors online and convince defendants to travel to meet them for the alleged purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual activity.

For someone to be guilty of traveling to meet a minor for unlawful sexual activity in Florida, the State must establish 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 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

Notice that the elements of solicitation are entirely subsumed by the elements of traveling to meet a minor. Because of this, a defendant is entitled to the dismissal of a solicitation charge brought with a traveling charge if the two charges arise from the “same course of conduct. Littleman v. State, 222 So.3d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)

The Florida Supreme Court has held that failure to dismiss a solicitation charge that stems from the same course of criminal conduct as a traveling charge violates the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment prohibition against double jeopardy. To learn more about when dual charges (and convictions) for solicitation and traveling violate double jeopardy, click here.

Although solicitation of a minor is generally charged under Fla. Stat. 847.0135(3), Florida’s sweeping statute prohibiting criminal solicitation of any crime (Fla. Stat. 777.04) can also be used to allege someone unlawfully solicited a minor. The difference between these is:

• Online solicitation (847.0135(3)) requires using a computer or online service to “seduce, solicit, lure or entice” a minor to engage in unlawful sexual activity (Grohs v. State, 944 So.2d 450 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006))
• Statutory solicitation (777.04) requires that someone “command, encourage, hire or request” another person to engage in any unlawful conduct 

Historically, if an alleged solicitation of a minor occurred in person, the State charged defendants using Florida’s general solicitation statute (Fla. Stat. 777.04). This ostensibly eliminated the need to prove the defendant engaged in the solicitous activity online, as the law requires only that the State establish that someone “commanded, encouraged, hired or requested” criminal activity.

However, the use of Florida’s general solicitation statute to charge solicitation of a minor was largely rendered obsolete by one major state court’s decision. Let’s take a look at Stumpf v. State, 677 So.2d 1298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) – and what it means for defendants accused of solicitation of a minor in Florida.

KEY CASE: Stumpf v. State, 677 So.2d 1298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)

In Stumpf, the defendant (Stumpf) was charged with solicitation to commit a lewd act on a child and lewd assault on a child. He was convicted on both counts and appealed to Florida’s 5th DCA (Northeast Florida).

At trial, it was revealed that Stumpf was riding a bicycle and deliberately followed a 12-year-old boy who was riding on his own bicycle. The minor panicked and fell off his bike, causing him to scrape his elbow. Stumpf then approached the minor and told him that he desired (or intended) to perform a sex act upon him – which frightened the minor.

Stumpf moved for a judgment of acquittal (MJOA) on the solicitation count, arguing that he did not violate the charged statute as a matter of law. However, the trial judge denied this.

On appeal, Stumpf challenged his solicitation conviction under 777.04. Stumpf argued he did not command, encourage, hire or request that the minor commit any crime. Because Stumpf would be the only one engaged in criminal activity if the hypothetical act occurred, Stumpf claimed that he could not be found guilty of solicitation under 777.04 as a matter of law.

Florida’s 5th DCA agreed with Stumpf – reversing his solicitation conviction. The 5th DCA held that Stumpf did not solicit the minor to commit any offense, because threatening to make another person the victim of a crime is not the same as soliciting them to commit that crime:

“We must agree with the appellant that he was entitled to a judgment of acquittal in respect to Count I, the solicitation charge. Threatening to make another person the victim of a crime obviously does not constitute the conduct proscribed by section 777.04(2), Florida Statutes, which provides: A person who solicits another to commit an offense prohibited by law and in the course of such solicitation commands, encourages, hires, or requests another person to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such offense or an attempt to commit such offense commits the offense of criminal solicitation. Stumpf did not solicit the minor to commit any offense, hence his conviction under Count I is reversed. We find no merit in the appellant’s remaining arguments on this appeal. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.”

In sum, Stumpf v. State, 677 So.2d 1298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) marked a major development in Florida case law on the issue of using Florida’s criminal solicitation statute (777.04) to regulate alleged solicitation of minors for sexual activity. The 5th DCA held:

• Stumpf expressed his desire (or intent) to force the victim to engage in a sex act, but did not take any overt action to make this happen
• Stumpf’s words were not a solicitation, as his expression of “intent or desire” to perform a sex act upon the alleged victim was not the same as “commanding, hiring, encouraging or requesting” someone to engage criminal activity
• Because of this, Stumpf was entitled to a judgment of acquittal on the solicitation count – so the 5th DCA reversed his conviction

In the years since Stumpf, Florida’s solicitation laws have broadened. Stumpf’s argument would likely fail if he was charged with online solicitation or lewd or lascivious conduct by solicitation (Fla. Stat. 800.04(6)). To learn more about why, click here.

Note: In 2006, a Florida court held that a defendant who expressed that he “wanted” to perform a sex act on a minor did not commit solicitation of a lewd or lascivious act. For more, click here.

If someone wishes to explore an entrapment defense in a criminal case, it is critical to find experienced and trusted legal representation as soon as possible if someone is charged with an offense involving a child victim. 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