Major Florida Court Reverses Solicitation of a Minor Conviction on Double Jeopardy Grounds

October 23, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Sex Crimes Social Share

A major Florida court has reversed a defendant’s conviction for solicitation of a minor on the grounds that it violated his Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy.

In Florida, someone may be charged with online solicitation of a minor (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(3)) and traveling to meet a minor for sexual activity (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(4)). Both of these offenses are part of Florida’s “Computer Pornography and Child Exploitation Prevention Act,” enacted to prevent child sexual abuse online in the state.

Online solicitation of a minor is a third-degree felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Traveling to meet a minor for unlawful sexual activity is a second-degree felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

For a comprehensive breakdown of Florida’s solicitation of a minor statute, click here. For more on traveling to meet a minor, click here.

When someone reads about traveling and solicitation for the first time, one thing they may notice is that the elements of solicitation are entirely subsumed by the elements of traveling to meet a minor. In other words, you can’t be convicted of traveling without first soliciting.

This is made clear by the elements of these offenses (what the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt for someone to be convicted).

Starting with solicitation of a minor, the State must show all of the following occurred for a defendant to be guilty:

• 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

Note: “Believed to be a child” encompasses undercover law enforcement officers during sting operations. State v. Murphy, 124 So. 3d 323 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)

For someone to be guilty of traveling to meet a minor, 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 traveled or attempted to travel to a location in Florida with the intent to meet the minor (or person believed to be a minor) to engage in unlawful sexual activity

After reading the above, you’ll notice that solicitation and traveling are largely the same offense. The only difference is that traveling to meet a minor requires the additional element of traveling or attempting to travel to meet the child or person believed to be a child (under 18) for sex.

Courts have recognized “double jeopardy” issues from charging and convicting someone of both of these crimes – but this is no game show. Under the U.S. Constitution, a defendant cannot be punished for the same course of criminal conduct twice.

The Founders created this clause of the Constitution to protect against prosecutorial overreach. In order to establish whether this important constitutional protection (under the Fifth Amendment) has been violated by multiple charges, courts use the Blockburger test.

The Blockburger test asks whether the elements of one of the two crimes is “entirely subsumed” by the elements of another. If this is the case, convictions for both offenses for the same alleged conduct violates the Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy. If each crime has a distinct element from the other, double jeopardy is not violated.

Now, let’s unpack how this applies in the context of dual convictions for online solicitation of a minor and traveling to meet a minor. To do so, it is worth looking at a case from a recent Florida District Court of Appeal that reversed a defendant’s convictions for both online solicitation and traveling on double jeopardy grounds.

Major New Case: Neu v. State (Fla. 6th DCA Sept. 2025)

In Neu, the defendant (Neu) was charged with a variety of offenses. These included:

• 5 counts of transmitting harmful material to a minor (Fla. Stat. 847.0138) (Counts 1-5)
• 1 count of online solicitation of a minor (Count 6)
• 1 count of attempted lewd battery of a minor (Count 7)
• 1 count of traveling to meet a minor (Count 8)

The State alleged that both the solicitation of a minor and traveling to meet a minor occurred between June 2, 2022 and June 3, 2022. The information (charging document) also alleged the traveling occurred after the solicitation.

Neu was eventually adjudicated guilty of counts 6, 7, and 8 after the jury convicted him on all charges. Neu was sentenced to seven years in prison for traveling to meet a minor, followed by 5 years of sex offender probation on each of count 6 (solicitation) and count 7 (attempted lewd battery).

On appeal, Neu argued that punishments for both solicitation and traveling violated double jeopardy. Neu cited State v. Shelley, 176 So. 3d 914, 917 (Fla. 2015), asserting that because the solicitation and traveling occurred on the same date, this was a “single course of conduct.” Thus, he could not be punished for both due to the entirely overlapping elements of the offenses.

The 6th DCA agreed with Neu and reversed the probation sentence for the solicitation charge. The court examined Shelley, where the Florida Supreme Court ruled convictions for solicitation of a parent or guardian to engage in sex with a minor and traveling, violated double jeopardy if the charges stemmed from the same course of conduct (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(3)(b) and(4)(b)). 

The 6th DCA applied this framework to (3)(a) and (4)(a), which outlaw direct solicitation of a minor (or person believed to be a minor) and traveling for unlawful sexual activity with the minor, respectively. The court found the elements of solicitation ((3)(a)) are entirely subsumed by the elements of traveling (4)(a), as discussed earlier.

As a result, the 6th DCA argued, Neu’s sentence for solicitation could only stand if the online solicitation and traveling were separate and distinct courses of conduct. The court examined the language of the charging document, and concluded that the State’s information did not specify these were separate from one another.

According to the court, both the solicitation and traveling occurred on the same day (as Neu observed). Moreover, the information (charging document) alleged that Neu traveled to meet the minor after the solicitation had occurred. 

To the court, this wedded the two charges – making them part of a single course of conduct. Thus, Neu’s protection against double jeopardy was violated by convictions and sentences for both solicitation and traveling. The 6th DCA wrote:

“Count 6 charges solicitation occurring ‘between June 2, 2022 and June 3, 2022, while within the State of Florida,’ and count 8 charges travel after solicitation also occurring ‘between June 2, 2022 and June 3, 2022, in the County of Polk and the State of Florida.’ The identical dates and consistent locations indicate the same criminal transaction or episode, implicating a potential double jeopardy violation.”

The court concluded that if solicitation and traveling are alleged to have occurred on the same date, the State must provide information specifically alleging the charges stem from “separate conduct.” If not, convictions and punishments for both solicitation and traveling violate double jeopardy, per Blockburger. The 6th DCA found:

“Neither count includes any other information indicating that a distinct act of solicitation is charged in each. … Thus, while the dates and locations in counts 6 and 8 could encompass separate solicitations, ‘the information does not make clear that the State relied on separate conduct to charge the offenses.’”

“Punishing Neu for both solicitation and travel after solicitation, as charged, violates the double jeopardy prohibition against multiple punishments for the same offense … We reverse the judgment of conviction on the lesser crime of solicitation, count 6, and reverse the sentence. We remand for entry of amended judgment and resentencing on counts 7 and 8.”

The outcome of Neu is not particularly surprising. Florida’s courts have been consistent that punishing solicitation and traveling violates double jeopardy if these stem from the same “course of conduct” – ever since State v. Shelley, 176 So. 3d 914, 917 (Fla. 2015).

However, Neu does offer some additional insights. The court wrote that the State must explicitly say in a charging document (if it isn’t made clear already) that the solicitation and traveling are part of separate and distinct courses of conduct. Otherwise, convictions and sentences for both will be presumed to violate double jeopardy.

A hypothetical example of when punishments for solicitation and traveling could have been separate and distinct (not violative of double jeopardy) in Neu’s case is:

• Neu sent one solicitous message to the minor on May 25, but nothing came of it 
• A week later, Neu sent another solicitous message (e.g. asking for sex), and the minor agreed. Neu then traveled that day to engage in unlawful sexual activity.

In this case, Neu could have been convicted of solicitation and traveling separately, because the first solicitation was not connected to the traveling (only the second one was). In the real case, however, the solicitation and traveling were intertwined – not separate courses of conduct (e.g. the traveling was the product of the solicitation).

Because traveling to meet a minor requires the State to prove a solicitation occurred first, a solicitation conviction cannot stick unless there is a solicitation independent from the solicitation tied to the traveling (like in the example). For more on how courts assess if a double jeopardy violation has occurred in traveling and solicitation, click here.

In sum, the 6th DCA’s Neu v. State ruling adds to an existing corpus of case law on when dual convictions and punishments for traveling to meet a minor and solicitation of a minor violate (and don’t) violate double jeopardy. 

If someone is charged with both of these offenses, a pretrial motion to dismiss the solicitation charge on double jeopardy grounds may be filed – depending on the facts of the case (e.g. if the solicitation was separate from or connected directly to the traveling). 

In the event someone is charged with a lewd or lascivious offense or charged with traveling to meet a minor, it is vital to seek out aggressive and experienced legal counsel as soon as possible. The attorneys at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting to win for clients across Florida.

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