North FL’s Highest Court Finds Emails Constituted Solicitation of a Minor for Sex

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

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal held that an email thread in which a defendant divulged his plans to have sex with a person he believed to be a 14-year-old girl constituted solicitation of a minor. Here’s why.

In Florida, solicitation of a minor to engage in unlawful sexual activity (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(3)) is a very serious felony offense. For someone to be guilty, 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 (e.g. undercover law enforcement) to engage in sexual activity (or attempted to do so)

Notice that the law does not only criminalize solicitation of actual minors online – it also makes it illegal to solicit a person the defendant believed the person they were messaging was a minor at the time the solicitation occurred. Thus, it is not a defense in Florida to observe that a sting operation led to the solicitation.

Solicitation of a minor is a third-degree felony under Florida law, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. To learn more, click here.

If someone is ensnared in a law enforcement sting involving the alleged solicitation of a “minor” (e.g. an undercover officer posing as a minor), then travels to meet the ostensible minor for the purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual activity, this is a separate crime – traveling to meet a minor (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(4)). Kuckuck v. State, 232 So. 3d 530 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)

For someone to be guilty of traveling to meet a minor for the purpose of unlawful sexual activity, 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

Traveling to meet a minor is considered a second-degree felony in Florida, punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. To learn more, click here.

Notice that the elements of solicitation are entirely subsumed by (contained within) the elements of traveling. This means that charging a defendant with (and convicting them of) both offenses violates their constitutional protection against double jeopardy if the solicitation and traveling arise from the same course of conduct. For more on this, click here.

A common question is what the definition of “solicitation” actually is under Florida law. This was squarely addressed by Florida’s 4th District Court of Appeal in Grohs v. State, 944 So.2d 450 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). There, the 4th DCA defined each of the terms relating to prohibited conduct in the online solicitation statute (seduce, solicit, lure, entice) as the following:

• “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. Lindemuth v. State, 247 So.3d 635 (Fla. 3d. DCA 2018)

Grohs makes clear that someone does not have to request a specific sex act with a minor and make them agree to it before being found guilty of solicitation. If someone’s course of conduct (e.g. emails/texts/messages with the minor) is designed to seduce, solicit, lure or entice the minor to engage in unlawful sexual activity, the statute is violated.

Note: If someone is accused of solicitation of a minor stemming from a police sting operation, a potential defense to this is entrapment. For more, click here.

In some cases since Grohs was decided, many defendants have appealed their solicitation of a minor (or person believed to be a minor) conviction, arguing that their conduct was not actually solicitous in nature. 

One such case was heard by Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal in 2013. There, a defendant was charged with (and convicted of) solicitation of a minor and traveling to meet a minor after he was ensnared in a law enforcement sting operation (during which the officer pretended to be a 14-year-old girl online).

Though the defendant appealed his convictions on the basis that he did not solicit the “minor” for sexual activity, the 1st DCA rejected this claim – finding that his reading of Florida’s solicitation of a minor statute was too narrow.

Let’s look at that case – Hernandez v. State, 135 So.3d 352 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) – and what it means for defendants facing solicitation of a minor and traveling to meet a minor charges in Florida.

KEY CASE: Hernandez v. State, 135 So.3d 352 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) 

In Hernandez, the defendant (Hernandez) was charged with and convicted of solicitation of a person believed to be a minor to engage in unlawful sexual activity, and traveling to meet a person believed to be a minor for the purpose of sex.  

At trial, it was revealed that Hernandez responded to an advertisement posted by an undercover Tallahassee Police Department (TPD) officer (Ofc. Gereg) on Craigslist, which read: “Butterfly 4 Release — w4m (Tallahassee, FL).” The body of the ad read: Wantn [sic] some1 to capture & release 2 the wild. U got what it takes…only talented apply.”

Hernandez responded to the ad, asking the poster to “let him know” if she was “bored.” The following exchange then occurred:

OFFICER GEREG: hey eddy….i m bored, lookn 4 fun down wit an yunger girl? 

HERNANDEZ: Yeah for sure. I can dig it. what are u up to 

OFFICER GEREG: well i m almost 15 chilln…lookn to get out u cool wit dat? lets tlk 

HERNANDEZ: Yea I suppose. would you be discreet?

OFFICER GEREG: r u kiddn me hell yes i would b….would get my ass kicked if any1 found out 

HERNANDEZ: well what are you doing. we can meet and maybe try and see if this can work. I’d like it to 

OFFICER GEREG: i would too but what we gonna do? i could sneak out in about an hr or so.

Hernandez suggested that the two “fool around.” When the undercover officer asked Hernandez for clarification regarding what he meant, Hernandez used an expletive to describe his intent to have sex with her upon his arrival. The pair arranged a meeting – and Hernandez was arrested when he arrived.

At trial, Hernandez moved for a judgment of acquittal (JOA) – arguing that nothing he said in the email exchange constituted “solicitation” of a minor. Hernandez asserted that he only discussed what he “intended” to do – which, according to Hernandez, was found to not be solicitation as a matter of law in Randall v. State, 919 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).

The judge denied Hernandez’s JOA motion, and he was convicted of solicitation and traveling. Challenging his convictions to Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal (Tallahassee and North Florida’s highest court), Hernandez renewed his argument that his conduct did not constitute solicitation as a matter of law. 

Because solicitation is also part of the offense of traveling (subsumed within the elements of it), Hernandez claimed this “fact” required reversal of his two convictions. However, the 1st DCA disagreed – affirming his convictions on the grounds that Hernandez solicited the undercover officer he believed to be a minor.

Finding Hernandez’s case to be disanalogous to Randall v. State, 919 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), the 1st DCA wrote:

“The facts are significantly different here. Hernandez and the undercover officer engaged in a lengthy email conversation during which, as the above-quoted exchange shows, Hernandez endeavored to convince the person he believed to be a 14–year–old girl to sneak away from home and meet him to have sex. This he did by first suggesting they could “fool around and if you like it we can do more perhaps.” Then, when the girl seemed to doubt it was worth the risk of getting in trouble with her parents, Hernandez said he would have sex with her for “as long as you’re able to be out,” and, importantly, he agreed to bring “protection” with him.  Considering these statements and all the evidence de novo, in the light most favorable to the State, we conclude Hernandez’s statements, under the circumstances present here, were sufficient for the jury to find he solicited a person believed to be a minor to engage in unlawful sexual conduct. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Hernandez’s motion for judgment of acquittal.”

In essence, because Hernandez luridly described the sex he intended to have with the “minor” and his messages were designed to effectuate this outcome (e.g. engaging in unlawful sexual activity with her), he committed solicitation as a matter of law even if a specific sex act was not agreed to.

In sum, Hernandez v. State, 135 So.3d 352 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) marks a major development in Florida case law on the issue of what constitutes solicitation of a minor for purposes of violating Fla. Stat. 847.0135(3) and Fla. Stat. 847.0135(4). The 1st DCA held that:

• Hernandez’s messages explicitly stated his intent to have sex with the “minor,” including the length of time he planned to spend doing so and the fact that he would use protection
• The goal of his messages was to “seduce, solicit, lure or entice” the “minor” to engage in unlawful sexual activity
• Because of this, there was no need for Hernandez to have agreed to engage in a specific sex act – and he did far more than saying he “wanted” to have sex with her (as was the case in Randall v. State, 919 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006))
• As a result, his convictions were affirmed

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Hernandez v. State, 135 So.3d 352 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), as it provides a comprehensive analysis of how Florida’s courts determine whether a defendant truly solicited a minor in violation of Florida law.

Notably, Hernandez’s solicitation conviction was eventually vacated by the Florida Supreme Court on the basis that his dual convictions for solicitation and traveling violated double jeopardy, per the Court’s subsequent State v. Shelley, 176 So.3d 914 (Fla. 2015) decision. 

However, the Florida Supreme Court did not question the legal validity of the 1st DCA’s analysis as to whether Hernandez committed solicitation. Thus, this component of the 1st DCA’s opinion remains good law.

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