Major FL Court: Solicitation of A Minor Can Be ‘Inferred’ Under Certain Circumstances

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

Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeal affirmed a defendant’s convictions for soliciting a minor to engage in sexual activity despite a lack of explicit agreement to engage in particular sex acts – finding that the content of the defendant’s messages was sufficient to show intent to solicit.

In Florida, solicitation of a minor for sexual activity (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(3)) is a very serious felony offense. For someone to be proven guilty of solicitation, the State must establish 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. It is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. For more on this, click here.

Critically, someone does not have to solicit an actual minor to be guilty. If someone is ensnared in a sting operation and sexually solicits a person who they believe to be a minor (even though it is an undercover officer on the receiving end of the message), the crime has still been committed. To learn more about sting operations, click here.

The question of what it means to solicit a minor for sex has been addressed on various occasions by Florida’s appellate courts. One of the key cases on this topic is Grohs v. State, 944 So.2d 450 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), in which Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeal (Southeast Florida) tried to define the scope of conduct that violates Fla. Stat. 847.0135(3):

• “Solicit” means to command, encourage, hire, or request another person to engage in specific conduct, “to entice or lure especially into evil” and “to proposition (someone) especially as or in the character of a prostitute” 
• “Seduce” means “to carry out the physical seduction of: entice to sexual intercourse” 
• “Lure” generally means “to draw with a hint of pleasure or gain: attract actively and strongly”
• “Entice” typically means “to attract artfully or adroitly or by arousing hope or desire: tempt.” It also means to lure, induce, tempt, incite, or persuade a person to do a thing. 

Note: Solicitation is often charged alongside traveling to meet a minor (a second-degree felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison) if someone physically goes to a location in anticipation of engaging in sexual activity with a minor after an unlawful solicitation. For more, click here.

In solicitation cases, a common issue is whether the message allegedly sent by a defendant was actually a solicitation for sexual activity in violation of Florida law – or “dirty talk” that may be ill-advised but not necessarily illegal. 

In the event that a solicitation (e.g. a request for sex) did not occur or was not obvious, an experienced and aggressive Florida criminal defense attorney may file a pretrial motion to dismiss the charges as a matter of law – arguing that no reasonable jury could find that the defendant’s conduct constituted unlawful solicitation (or seduction, luring, etc.).

Moreover, if someone is found guilty of solicitation of a minor (or person believed to be a minor) for sex at trial, a defendant may appeal this – arguing there was insufficient evidence upon which to base a solicitation conviction.

Whether such a motion or appeal will be successful is heavily dependent on the facts of the case. However, Florida’s courts in recent years have made clear that even messages that “beat around the bush” (e.g. not using explicit sexual language), but imply a sexual solicitation when read in its full context, can be considered a solicitation that violates Fla. Stat. 847.0135(3).

One such case in which a major Florida court reached this conclusion is Hartley v. State, 129 So.3d 486 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Let’s take a look at Hartley and what it means for defendants accused of solicitation of a minor (or person believed to be a minor) in Florida.

KEY CASE: Hartley v. State, 129 So.3d 486 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)

In Hartley, the defendant (Hartley) was charged with three counts of solicitation of a minor and one count of traveling to meet a minor (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(4)). He was convicted on all counts.

At trial, it was revealed that Hartley posted an ad on Craigslist indicating he was 35 years old and looking for a “younger” person, seemingly to have a sexual encounter with. An undercover officer replied to the ad, indicating she was a 14-year-old boy (“My name is Tyler. I’m 14, five foot six, 140 and smooth with barely any hair. Let me know if you are interested.”).

Hartley and “Tyler” (the fake name used by the undercover officer) began messaging each other on November 2. Those messages continued for the next 2 days – November 3 and November 4. However, only on November 3 did Hartley explicitly discuss engaging in particular sex acts with “Tyler.”

Hartley eventually traveled to meet “Tyler” for sex and was arrested. He was interviewed and gave a statement to the police describing Tyler as a “student” he was going to “help tutor.” He then conceded the conversation they had was “something about sex” and kissing, and claimed “Tyler” wanted to “try stuff” with him.

At trial, Hartley moved for a judgment of acquittal (MJOA) on two of the three solicitation counts, which stemmed from his communications with “Tyler” on November 2 and November 4. Hartley argued that he did not discuss any “sex acts” with “Tyler” on those days. As a result, he contended that the State could not prove him guilty on those two counts.

However, the trial judge denied Hartley’s MJOA request, finding the question of whether his November 2 and November 4 messages constituted solicitation was one for the jury. He was ultimately convicted on all counts.

On appeal to Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeal, Hartley renewed his argument that he did not solicit “Tyler” as a matter of law on November 2 or November 4. Because of this, Hartley asserted, the trial judge erred by not dismissing this pair of charges as a matter of law.

Florida’s 4th DCA (Southeast Florida) disagreed with Hartley. The 4th DCA found that given the “totality of the circumstances,” the messages sent on November 2 and November 4 were part of a broader effort to solicit “Tyler,” even though the references to sexual activity were indirect:

“Considering the content of the November 2 and November 4 text exchanges, in context with their closeness in time to the November 3 exchanges and other communications which expressly indicated that appellant’s intent was to begin a sexual relationship with a fourteen-year-old boy, a jury could “fairly and reasonably infer” that various statements made by appellant in his online communications with “Tyler” met the plain and ordinary definitions of seduce, solicit, lure, and entice, even if he did so only obliquely and implicitly by avoiding explicit references to sexual conduct.”

The 4th DCA cited its previous ruling in Grohs v. State, 944 So.2d 450 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), concluding that the jury could “reasonably infer” a solicitation from the evidence presented:

“Consequently, we conclude that the trial court did not err by denying [defendant’s] motion for judgment of acquittal and allowing the jury to exercise its fact-finding role to “fairly and reasonably infer” conclusions from sufficient evidence regarding conduct that presented “room for a difference of opinion between reasonable men.” 944 So.2d at 457. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motions for judgment of acquittal.”

However, the 4th DCA reversed Hartley’s solicitation conviction on November 4 for a different reason. Since the November 4 count of solicitation (Count III) was charged on the same day that he traveled to meet “Tyler,” Hartley’s convictions for solicitation and traveling on November 4 violated his constitutional protection against double jeopardy. The 4th DCA explained:

“Because the events involving counts III and IV occurred on the same day, November 4, we must determine whether each criminal offense charged in these counts was committed in the course of one criminal episode or transaction. To do so, we must compare the statutory elements of soliciting a child for unlawful sexual conduct using computer services and the elements of traveling to meet a minor. See § 775.021(4), Fla. Stat. (2011)…”

“This review indicates that all the elements of soliciting a child are included within the offense of traveling to meet a minor; traveling to meet a minor contains an element that is not an element of soliciting a child, namely, knowingly traveling within the state. Therefore, because all the elements of soliciting are included in the traveling offense, it appears that section 775.021(4)(b) applies to counts III and IV, and the elements of the lesser offense are subsumed in the greater offense. Based upon the foregoing analysis, the trial court shall vacate the conviction and sentence on count III.”

Because Hartley’s final “solicitation” (November 4) and traveling (also November 4) were part of a “single course of conduct,” and the elements of solicitation are entirely subsumed by those of traveling, Hartley could not be convicted of solicitation on the same day he traveled to meet “Tyler.”

Note: Pumphrey Law has extensively discussed this issue. To learn more about when solicitation and traveling charges violate double jeopardy, click here.

In sum, Hartley v. State, 129 So.3d 486 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) marks a significant development in Florida’s corpus of case law surrounding what constitutes solicitation of a minor, and when dual convictions of solicitation and traveling to meet a minor violate double jeopardy. The 4th DCA found:

• Even though Hartley did not explicitly request sex from “Tyler” on November 2 or 4, the general content of the conversations indicated that Hartley’s goal was to engage in sexual activity with him
• This was reinforced by the fact that Hartley did explicitly solicit “Tyler” on November 3, so the jury could “reasonably infer” Hartley’s messages on November 2 and 4 were sent to “command, encourage, hire, or request” Tyler to engage in sex with him
• As a result, there was sufficient evidence to find Hartley guilty on all three counts of solicitation (not just the November 3 count)
• However, since the November 4 solicitation (Count III of the information) occurred on the same day Hartley traveled to meet “Tyler,” his November 4 solicitation conviction was reversed because it violated his constitutional protection against double jeopardy

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Hartley v. State, 129 So.3d 486 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), as it is an intriguing case that reiterates Grohs’s conclusion that under certain circumstances, solicitation of a minor can be found even if there is no explicit request for a sex act.

It also reinforces that in traveling and solicitation cases, convictions for both offenses on the same day violate double jeopardy. This has been consistently recognized by Florida courts, including the Florida Supreme Court in Lee v. State.

If someone wishes to explore an entrapment defense in a criminal case or is being charged with solicitation of 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 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