Major FL Court Upholds Dual Solicitation & Traveling Convictions Despite Double Jeopardy Concerns

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

Florida’s 5th District Court of Appeal held that because there was a ‘temporal break’ between the defendant’s two alleged solicitations of a fictional minor, only one of which led to traveling to meet the minor, the defendant’s solicitation conviction did not have to be vacated.

In Florida, solicitation of a minor online for unlawful sexual activity (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(3)) is a very serious third-degree felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. This is often charged alongside traveling to meet a minor if the defendant attempts to meet the minor for sex (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(4)) – traveling is a second-degree felony (up to 15 years in prison).

For someone to be guilty of solicitation of a minor, 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)

Important: Under Fla. Stat. 847.0135(3)(b), a defendant also violates the statute if they solicit a person who is (or is believed to be) the parent or guardian of a minor to engage in sexual activity with a minor.

You may notice that Florida’s solicitation statute only requires the defendant to have believed they were soliciting a minor (or parent/guardian of a minor) to be guilty. This provision allows law enforcement to conduct sting operations while posing as minors or their relatives online.

If someone is ensnared in a sting operation, they can still face the same charges as if they had been communicating with an actual minor. But if the police relied upon “inducement” tactics to convince the defendant to act unlawfully, or violated the defendant’s due process rights through egregious misconduct, entrapment can serve as a viable defense. For more, click here.

For someone to be guilty of traveling to meet a minor, the State must prove 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

Note that the elements of solicitation are entirely subsumed by the elements of traveling to meet a minor. This means someone cannot commit the crime of traveling to meet a minor for sexual activity under Fla. Stat. 847.0135(4) unless they first violate the solicitation statute (and travel after the solicitation occurs).

The significance of this is that dual convictions for solicitation and traveling generally violate a defendant’s constitutional protection against double jeopardy. Florida’s courts are clear that if solicitation and traveling charges stem from conduct that took place on the same day, and there was only one victim, charging both solicitation and traveling violates double jeopardy.

If solicitation and traveling to meet a minor charges are brought together and arise from the same course of alleged conduct (e.g. same day, same victim), Florida’s courts are required to dismiss the solicitation charge (lesser-included offense of traveling) as a matter of law. If this does not occur, it is reversible error. Lee v. State, 258 So. 3d 1297 (Fla. 2018)

Given this fact, it may be tempting to move for a dismissal of a solicitation charge in every case where the defendant has been charged with solicitation and traveling to meet a minor. Since the elements of solicitation are subsumed by the elements of traveling (cannot be guilty of traveling without solicitation), this seems sure to succeed at first glance.

However, there are cases where traveling and solicitation can permissibly be charged together without violating a defendant’s constitutional protection against double jeopardy in Florida. Littleman v. State, 222 So.3d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)

If the court finds that the defendant’s “course of conduct” that led to the solicitation charge was separate than the one that produced the traveling charge, dismissal of the solicitation charge on double jeopardy grounds is not required. Someone may be punished for both solicitation and traveling under such circumstances, despite this ordinarily being prohibited.

But what kind of cases involve no double jeopardy violation when solicitation and traveling are charged together? Though many Florida appellate courts have vacated a solicitation conviction and sentence based on a double jeopardy violation (when the defendant was also convicted of traveling), some courts have declined to do so, finding two “courses of conduct” occurred.

One case in which dual solicitation and traveling convictions were upheld is Barnett v. State, 159 So.3d 922 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). Let’s take a look at Barnett and discuss what it means for those charged with solicitation of a minor and traveling to meet a minor in Florida.

KEY CASE: Barnett v. State, 159 So.3d 922 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)

In Barnett, the defendant (Barnett) was charged with two counts of solicitation of a minor (Oct. 24 and 26, 2012), traveling to meet a minor for purposes of engaging in unlawful sexual conduct, and attempted lewd or lascivious battery. He was found guilty on all charges.

At trial, it was revealed that Barnett began corresponding with an Osceola County Sheriff’s Dept. lieutenant, who he believed to be a 14-year-old girl on a dating site. Barnett expressed a desire to engage in unlawful sexual acts with the ostensible teenager. This all occurred on October 24.

Late that evening, Barnett began pushing the fictional minor to meet for sex. However, Barnett changed his mind before this could be arranged, writing that he could not “risk going to jail and losing his son.” The fictional minor responded with a text that read: “It’s okay. I get it. I won’t bother you then.”

Two days later, on October 26, Barnett reengaged with the fictional minor. He reiterated a desire to engage in unlawful sex acts with her, and they agreed to meet at a particular location. When Barnett arrived, he was met by law enforcement officers – who arrested him immediately. Police found three condoms and sexual performance enhancement pills in Barnett’s vehicle.

Barnett moved to dismiss the solicitation charges at trial, arguing these violated his constitutional protection against double jeopardy because:

• The elements of solicitation were entirely subsumed by the elements of traveling to meet a minor, and
• The solicitations arose from the same “course of conduct” (Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932))

However, the trial judge denied Barnett’s motion, and he was convicted of both solicitations, as well as traveling and attempted lewd battery. Barnett appealed to Florida’s 5th District Court of Appeal (Northeast Florida), reiterating his claim that his solicitation convictions violated double jeopardy and required reversal.

The 5th DCA partially agreed with Barnett, reversing the solicitation conviction that arose from communications on October 26 (the day he traveled) – but affirming the solicitation conviction that arose from his communications with the fictional minor on October 24. Citing Hartley v. State, 129 So.3d 486 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), the 5th DCA wrote:

“This court has previously stated that if a defendant solicited an unlawful sexual act with a minor through a single use of a computer service or device prior to traveling to meet the minor for unlawful sexual conduct, double jeopardy principles would preclude a conviction under both section 847.0135(3) and section 847.0135(4). Pinder v. State, 128 So.3d 141, 143 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). Support for this general principle can be found in subsequent cases authored by our sister courts, Hartley v. State, 129 So.3d 486 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) … In Hartley, the defendant was convicted of three counts of using a computer to solicit a minor for unlawful sexual conduct and one count of traveling to meet a minor for unlawful sexual conduct.”

Each episode of solicitation was alleged to have taken place on a separate day, specifically November 2, 2011 (Count I), November 3, 2011 (Count II), and November 4, 2011 (Count III). Count IV charged the defendant with traveling to meet the minor on November 4, 2011. The Hartley court recognized that all of the elements necessary to establish the violation of section 847.0135(3)(a) are included within the elements necessary to establish a violation of section 847.0135(4)(a). As a result, the court found that double jeopardy principles required it to vacate Hartley’s solicitation conviction on Count III. Id. However, Hartley’s convictions on Count I and Count II were affirmed based on the language in section 847.0135(3), expressly providing that each use of a computer service or device may be charged as a separate offense…”

Applying Hartley v. State to the facts of Barnett’s case, the 5th DCA concluded double jeopardy precluded a conviction stemming from the solicitation on October 26 (which resulted in Barnett traveling), but allowed a conviction for the solicitation on October 24 (which did not lead to Barnett traveling):

“Convictions for both soliciting and traveling could be legally imposed “in cases in which the State has charged and proven separate uses of computer devices to solicit.” … In the instant case, double jeopardy precluded a conviction on Count III (solicitation on October 26, 2012). However, double jeopardy principles do not require a vacating of Barnett’s conviction on Count II (solicitation on October 24, 2012). There was clearly a temporal break between Barnett’s illegal actions committed on October 24 and those committed two days later.”

In sum, Barnett v. State, 159 So.3d 922 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) is a significant development in Florida’s corpus of case law on the issue of when dual solicitation of a minor and traveling to meet a minor convictions violate double jeopardy (Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) in Florida. The 5th DCA held:

• Barnett’s solicitation of the fictional minor on October 24 did not lead to him traveling to meet the minor for sex (e.g. he explicitly discontinued the communications after changing his mind)
• Barnett’s reinitiation of communications on October 26 led directly to the traveling 
• This represented two “courses of conduct” that were clearly separated in time 
• As a result, Barnett’s solicitation conviction for his electronic communications with the fictional minor on October 24 was affirmed – as it was a separate and distinct course of conduct than the one that resulted in Barnett traveling 

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Barnett v. State, 159 So.3d 922 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015), as it makes clear that not all dual convictions for solicitation of a minor and traveling to meet a minor violate double jeopardy. If solicitation and traveling charges stem from different “courses of conduct,” dual convictions (and punishments) are legally permissible.

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