Major FL Court Rules Sentence in Traveling to Meet a Minor Case Was “Too Lenient”: Here’s Why

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

Florida’s 5th District Court of Appeal reversed a trial judge’s withhold of adjudication for a defendant who entered an open plea to traveling to meet a minor, among other charges.

In Florida, traveling to meet a minor (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(4)) is a very serious second-degree felony. For someone to be proven guilty, the State must establish all of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

• 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 intended to seduce, solicit, lure or entice 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 within Florida with the intent to meet the minor (or person believed to be a minor) for the purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual activity

Traveling to meet a minor is punishable by up to 15 years in state prison and a $10,000 fine. Depending on the facts of the case, traveling is occasionally charged alongside offenses such as:

• Solicitation of a minor (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(3)) 
• Unlawful use of a two-way communications device to facilitate a felony (Fla. Stat. 934.215)
• Attempted lewd battery

If someone is accused of traveling to meet a minor that was actually an undercover police officer, they may be able to argue they were entrapped. There are two types of entrapment in Florida – subjective entrapment and objective entrapment. To learn more about this and how it may apply if someone faces traveling to meet a minor charges, click here.

If a person pleads guilty to traveling to meet a minor, this is subject to the same conditions as any other plea deal. When the State and defense create a plea agreement with undisputed terms (e.g. what the disposition/sentence will be), a trial judge in Florida can either:

• Accept the plea and sentence the defendant to the terms set out by the agreement 
• Reject the plea and force the parties to go back to the drawing board until the terms are acceptable to the judge, or a jury trial occurs

A defendant may also enter an open plea. An open plea (e.g. a “straight-up” plea) involves the defendant pleading guilty to the charges – and letting the judge decide the sentence after hearing arguments from both the State and defense. 

This can either work favorably for a defendant, or work against them. In certain cases, an open plea may result in the judge imposing a harsh sentence – perhaps much more so than what would have been imposed in a negotiated plea.

However, an open plea may sometimes have the opposite effect. A trial judge may hand down a lighter sentence than a negotiated plea would have produced. If someone does wish to plead, whether to enter an open plea or negotiated plea is a key decision (hopefully made with the advice of competent counsel). 

Occasionally, a judge may hand down a “lighter” sentence after someone enters an open plea. This may include a withhold of adjudication instead of a jail or prison sentence. A withhold of adjudication involves a judge not immediately entering a conviction for the crime into record.

But even though the judge does have broad discretion (authority) to decide what a sentence will be in the case of an open plea, this discretion is not unlimited. For example, a judge cannot enter a withhold of adjudication if a defendant enters a guilty plea to serious felonies unless the judge makes specific, on the record findings explaining why they have chosen to do so.

One case that demonstrates this was heard by Florida’s 5th District Court of Appeal. There, the trial judge’s lenient sentence for traveling to meet a minor – handed down to the defendant after an open plea – was reversed by the 5th DCA. 

Let’s take a look at State v. Fureman, 161 So.3d 403 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) and what it means for sentencing in Florida felony cases – particularly those involving sex offenses such as traveling to meet a minor.

KEY CASE: State v. Fureman, 161 So.3d 403 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)

In Fureman, the defendant (Fureman) entered an “open” guilty plea to traveling to meet a minor, solicitation of a minor online, and attempted lewd and lascivious battery. The charges arose from Fureman allegedly chatting with an undercover officer impersonating a minor on a website, then traveling to meet her for sex.

Between the three charges, Fureman’s exposure was 25 years in prison (15 for traveling, 5 for attempted lewd battery, 5 for solicitation). Despite Fureman’s “open” guilty plea, the trial judge withheld adjudication on all three felony counts without issuing written findings explaining the decision.

The trial judge also did not order sex offender probation – and instead, sentenced Fureman to two years of community control followed by thirteen years of probation. The State objected to a lack of sex offender probation for attempted lewd battery, but this was overruled by the judge on the grounds that the battery was not completed (only attempted).

Though the minimum sentence on Fureman’s scoresheet was 63 months in prison (e.g. if he was convicted of all three offenses at trial, the judge would have to sentence him to at least that), the judge “downward departed” from this and ordered no jail time. 

Finding that Fureman committed the offenses in an “unsophisticated manner,” that the offenses were “isolated and uncharacteristic” of Fureman (given his lack of a criminal record) and noting that he exhibited remorse, the trial judge ordered only probation and community control.

On appeal, the State challenged the trial judge’s order. The State contended that the trial judge erred as a matter of law in:

• Downward departing (imposing a lesser jail/prison sentence than the scoresheet required) without a proper legal basis
• Withholding adjudication on traveling to meet a minor without written findings
• Failing to impose sex offender probation

The 5th DCA (Northeast Florida) agreed and reversed the sentence, ordering the trial judge to resentence Fureman consistent with the 5th DCA’s ruling. The court began by discussing the downward departure, finding the trial judge’s characterization of the crime as “unsophisticated” was inaccurate:

“Specifically, Fureman responded to the “Parenting Help Wanted” advertisement with an understanding that the internet posting offered sex. He then directed subsequent conversations spanning a three-week period, prior to the scheduled meeting for sex. His desire to conceal the contents of his communications by writing “[t]here are certain things I will not put in print, but I will say on the phone,” evinced consciousness of guilt and a desire to avoid the negative consequences of his actions. Additionally, when Fureman wrote, “Suffice to say, she will learn to be [sic] good, submissive girl and please the man she is with,” his implied purpose was a negotiation for sexual activity. Finally, when Fureman drove more than twenty minutes with condoms and lubricant in his possession to participate in the meeting for sex, he completed “several distinctive and deliberate steps,” which cannot be characterized as unsophisticated.”

The 5th DCA noted its disagreement with a 1st DCA (North Florida’s highest court) decision on that very issue:

“We do not agree with the first district’s statement to the extent it implies that, standing alone, use of a common communication tool in the commission of a crime is competent and substantial evidence that the crime was committed in an unsophisticated manner. On the contrary, we believe that using a computer to commit a crime evinces a level of sophistication that would not support a downward departure sentence.”

The 5th DCA next discussed the withhold of adjudication, finding that the trial judge could not lawfully withhold adjudication on the traveling to meet a minor charge unless the State requested a withhold or the judge made written findings. The court wrote:

“We also reverse and remand because the lower court withheld adjudication on Count 1: traveling to meet a minor (or parent) for the purpose of engaging in an illegal act in violation of section 847.0135(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2011), a second-degree felony. As this court said in State v. Garza, 118 So.3d 856, 858 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013): Courts may not withhold adjudication of guilt for a second-degree felony unless “[t]he state attorney requests in writing that adjudication be withheld,” or “[t]he court makes written findings that the withholding of adjudication is reasonably justified based on circumstances or factors in accordance with those set forth in [section] 921.0026.” … In the present case, the State did not request a withhold of adjudication, and the judge failed to make any written findings required by section 775.08435(1)(b)2. Accordingly, the lower court erred in withholding adjudication on Count 1.”

Finally, the 5th DCA addressed the trial judge’s decision not to impose sex offender probation on the grounds that Fureman did not actually commit lewd or lascivious battery (he attempted it). Finding this was a distinction without a difference since the statute covering the crime required sex offender registration, the court concluded:

“Section 948.30(1) “mandates that for probationers who committed certain specified sex-based crimes after October 1, 1995, ‘the court must impose [certain] conditions in addition to all other standard and special conditions imposed.’ … Accordingly, because attempted sexual battery is an offense under the battery statute, the mandatory provisions in section 948.30 require conditions of sex offender probation.”

Since the judge’s sentence in Fureman’s case did not comply with Florida law in the eyes of the 5th DCA, they reversed the sentence and remanded for resentencing consistent with the opinion. 

In sum, State v. Fureman, 161 So.3d 403 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) is a significant development in Florida case law on the issues of sentencing in open pleas, downward departures, withholds of adjudication, sex offender registration, and permissible sentences for traveling to meet a minor.

The 5th DCA held that:

• The judge could not downwardly depart on the basis that Fureman’s crimes were unsophisticated, as there was no competent and substantial evidence to support this characterization (and there was evidence to the contrary)
• The judge could not enter a withhold of adjudication for traveling to meet a minor without stipulation by the State or written findings on the record explaining his decision
• The judge could not refuse to order sex offender probation for Fureman, as he pled guilty to an offense under Fla. Stat. 800.04 (which requires sex offender registry)

Florida defendants and defense attorneys should be aware of Fureman when evaluating the terms of potential plea offers, especially in cases involving alleged sex offenses. 

If someone is accused of traveling to meet a minor, 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 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