North Florida’s Highest Court Clarifies Double Jeopardy When Multiple Solicitations Charged in Solicitation and Traveling Cases

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

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal vacated one of a defendant’s two convictions for online solicitation of a person believed to be a minor on double jeopardy grounds.

In Florida, online solicitation of a minor (Fla. Stat 847.0135(3)) and traveling to meet a minor for the purpose of unlawful sexual activity (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(4)) are serious felonies. Solicitation is considered a third-degree felony (up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine), while traveling is a second-degree felony (up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine).

Though someone may be charged both solicitation and traveling, there are constitutional limits on how these charges can be brought. Convictions for solicitation and traveling to meet a minor that stem from the same course of conduct violate a defendant’s constitutional protection against double jeopardy. State v. Shelley, 176 So.3d 914 (Fla. 2015)

This is because the elements of solicitation of a minor are entirely subsumed by traveling. For someone to be proven guilty of solicitation, the State must establish the following:

• 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 (e.g. undercover law enforcement) to engage in sexual activity (or attempted to do so)

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

Since solicitation is part of the crime of traveling to meet a minor, courts are required to dismiss a solicitation charge on double jeopardy grounds if it is not clearly a separate solicitation from the one that led to the traveling. Kuckuck v. State, 232 So. 3d 530 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)

Though this may seem a bit complicated at first glance, an example of a case where a State could charge solicitation and traveling without violating double jeopardy may include:

• A defendant solicits a minor (or person believed to be one) for sex on September 12. The minor declines. The defendant solicits again on September 14. The minor agrees, and the defendant travels to meet them – then is arrested.

In the above hypothetical, the State could permissibly charge the defendant with both traveling and solicitation. Since the September 12 solicitation is separate and distinct from the one that led to the traveling (the September 14 solicitation), it is considered a different course of conduct, allowing multiple charges.

But if only the September 14 solicitation occurred and the alleged minor agreed to meet based on that solicitation, charging solicitation on top of traveling would violate double jeopardy (same course of conduct). This requires the solicitation charge to be dropped/conviction to be vacated if the charge is not dismissed before trial.

Note: Solicitation of a minor does not require someone to create an explicit agreement for a particular sex act. For more on how Florida’s courts define solicitation of a minor, click here.

Occasionally, solicitation and traveling charges will arise from a police sting operation in which officers pose as minors and communicate with users of platforms (e.g. dating apps) online.

This typically involves an officer creating an account purporting to be one of the following:

• A minor (e.g. person under 18)
• A parent/guardian of a minor (e.g. mother, father, uncle, aunt)

Solicitation of a person believed to be a minor (847.0135(3)(a)) or of a person believed to be a parent or guardian of a minor (847.0135(3)(b)) are separate third-degree felonies. In most cases where someone is accused of solicitation, they only face one of these charges (since officers pose as one or the other).

But what happens if an undercover officer communicates with a suspect through two online accounts during the same sting – one of them purporting to be a minor, and the other purporting to be a parent or guardian of that same minor? 

What if the defendant solicits both fictional users (even though it is just one officer operating multiple accounts) – and is charged with solicitation separately under 847.0135(3)(a) (for the fictional minor directly) and 847.0135(3)(b) (for soliciting the guardian of the minor to make the minor available for sex)?

If both solicitation charges are alleged to arise from the “same course of conduct” as traveling, are Florida’s courts required to dismiss:

• Neither of the solicitation charges
• Only one of the solicitation charges 
• Both of the solicitation charges

On double jeopardy grounds? The answer is – only one of the two is required to be dismissed. Let’s take a look at how Tallahassee and North Florida’s highest court addressed this intriguing issue in Littleman v. State, 222 So.3d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) – and what it means for double jeopardy protections in Florida.

KEY CASE: Littleman v. State, 222 So.3d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)

In Littleman, the defendant (Littleman) was charged with and convicted of the following three offenses after he was ensnared in a police sting:

• Traveling to meet a minor for the purpose of unlawful sexual activity (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(4))
• Online solicitation of a person believed to be a minor (847.0135(3)(a))
• Online solicitation of a person believed to be a minor’s guardian (847.0135(3)(b))

Littleman allegedly engaged in sexually explicit online communications with what he believed to be the uncle of a fictional minor and the minor herself (fake accounts created by police) about the sexual activity he wished to engage in with her. When he traveled to meet her/them, he was arrested.

Littleman was convicted on all counts. On appeal, Littleman argued that since the solicitations and traveling happened on the same day, these are presumed to be “one course of conduct” under Meythaler v. State, 175 So.3d 918 (Fla. 2d. DCA 2015). Littleman argued this required vacation of both solicitation convictions on double jeopardy grounds.

The State countered by arguing only one of the two solicitation convictions had to be vacated – not both. The State contended that Littleman was found guilty of multiple solicitations, and only one of these served logically as the basis for the traveling charge. 

Because there was one “other” solicitation that did not lead to traveling (e.g. a separate course of conduct from the one that did), the State urged the 1st DCA to affirm one of the two solicitation convictions – not vacate them both. 

The 1st DCA agreed with the State and directed the trial court to vacate only one (not both) of the solicitation convictions on double jeopardy grounds. The 1st DCA wrote:

“On remand, we ordered the State to show cause why Appellant’s convictions and sentences for the two solicitation offenses should not be vacated based on Shelley. The State filed a response arguing that Shelley is not controlling here because the solicitations were two separate and distinct acts, and that even if Shelley controlled, the remedy would be to vacate only one of the two solicitation convictions. Appellant, through counsel, filed a reply arguing that both of the solicitation convictions should be vacated pursuant to Shelley. We agree with the State as to the appropriate remedy under the circumstances of this case.”

“Here, Appellant was separately charged with and pled to solicitations involving two different victims and modes of communication: (1) text messages with the officer posing as a 14–year old girl,2 and (2) email with the officer posing as the girl’s uncle. Because the offenses were based on different conduct, only one of the resulting solicitation convictions was necessarily subsumed in the traveling offense. Thus, Shelley only requires one of the solicitation convictions to be vacated. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to vacate one of Appellant’s solicitation convictions. In all other respects, we affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence.”

Put simply, the 1st DCA found that only one of the two solicitations was necessarily “subsumed” into the traveling offense. Because of this, only one solicitation conviction had to be vacated.

Judge Makar of the 1st DCA wrote a concurring opinion that reached the same legal conclusion, using slightly different reasoning. To Judge Makar, it did intuitively seem that both solicitation convictions should be vacated on double jeopardy grounds, since the conduct occurred on the same day as the traveling (Littleman’s argument).

However, Judge Makar noted that the law (and the Florida Supreme Court in Shelley) appeared to specifically authorize solicitation of a minor and solicitation of a parent/guardian of a minor to be punished separately – even if these were committed on the same day.

This exception to the “same course of conduct” rule allowed one of the two convictions to be affirmed. Judge Makar wrote:

“The most reasonable conclusion, based on the structure of subsection (3), is that the statement applies to both (a) and (b), thereby providing legislative authorization for separate punishments for persons who solicit children (or those believed to be children) and who solicit parent/guardian/custodian (or those believed to be a parent/guardian/custodian), even if the solicitations are part of a single criminal episode—as they appear to be here. Even though Littleman’s two electronic communications were a part of single criminal episode with a detective playing the roles of a child and her uncle, the legislature has determined that both are separately punishable, one of which must be vacated under Shelley.”

In sum, Littleman v. State, 222 So.3d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) is a fascinating contribution to Florida’s corpus of case law surrounding double jeopardy when traveling to meet a minor and online solicitation of a minor charges are brought together. The 1st DCA majority held:

• Littleman was convicted of two counts of solicitation
• Only one solicitation of the two was necessarily subsumed by the traveling offense
• Since one was not subsumed, only one of the two solicitation convictions (not both) had to be vacated on double jeopardy grounds

Judge Makar wrote a concurring opinion that indicated he would have vacated both solicitation convictions on double jeopardy grounds (same day = same course of conduct). However, since solicitation of a minor (or person believed to be one) and solicitation of a parent/guardian are punishable separately under Florida law, this allowed one solicitation conviction to stand.

Florida defense attorneys and defendants should take note of Littleman, as it affirms the “same day = same course of conduct” double jeopardy standard affirmed in Meythaler and Shelley, but carves out an exception for multiple solicitation convictions. If someone is convicted of two or more solicitations in addition to traveling, only one conviction must be vacated.

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 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