When Does Charging Traveling and Solicitation NOT Violate Double Jeopardy? Major FL Court Rules

November 11, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Sex Crimes Social Share

Florida’s 5th District Court of Appeal held that a defendant’s protection against double jeopardy was not violated by dual convictions for traveling to meet a minor and solicitation of a minor. Here’s why.

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 extremely serious felonies. Solicitation is 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).

If someone solicits a minor or a person believed to be a minor online (such as an undercover officer posing as a minor) and travels to meet them for sexual activity, they may face charges of both solicitation and traveling. This is especially common if someone is ensnared in a police sting. For more on law enforcement stings that lead to such charges in Florida, click here.

When someone is accused of solicitation and traveling, a key concern is whether formally charging a person with both of these violates their constitutional protection against double jeopardy. Under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, someone generally may not be punished twice (or more) for the same course of criminal conduct.

To determine whether a double jeopardy violation has occurred, courts employ something called the Blockburger test, named for Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932). If someone is charged with multiple offenses for the same alleged conduct, courts ask if the elements of one charged offense are entirely subsumed by the elements of another.

This becomes relevant in the context of traveling to meet a minor and solicitation of a minor charges in Florida, because the elements of solicitation are entirely subsumed by the “greater offense” of traveling to meet a minor.

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)

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

Notice that someone cannot commit the offense of traveling to meet a minor (Fla. Stat. 847.0135(4)) without first performing a solicitation online. For more on what constitutes solicitation of a minor (how courts define solicitation under Fla. Stat 847.0135(3)), click here.

Because of this, charging someone with both traveling and solicitation typically violates double jeopardy. To avoid the solicitation charge being dismissed on double jeopardy grounds, the State must allege in the charging document (information) that the solicitation and traveling were part of separate and distinct courses of conduct. Lee v. State, 258 So. 3d 1297 (Fla. 2018)

Due to the solicitation and traveling having entirely overlapping elements, it is often thought that convictions for both requires reversal of the solicitation conviction (the “lesser offense”) under Blockburger and Lee. However, one major Florida court decision shows that in some cases, this is not true.

Let’s discuss Kuckuck v. State, 232 So. 3d 530 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017), which upheld a defendant’s dual convictions for solicitation and traveling to meet a minor amid double jeopardy concerns.

KEY CASE: Kuckuck v. State, 232 So. 3d 530 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)

In Kuckuck, the defendant (Kuckuck) was convicted of soliciting what he believed to be the parent of a minor child for sex (actually an undercover officer) in violation of Fla. Stat. 847.0135(3)(b), and traveling after solicitation in violation of Fla. Stat. 847.0135(4)(b). 

Kuckuck responded to an advertisement from a fictional father of two young girls advertising “taboo” experiences for his “daughters” on Craigslist. This was actually created by the police. Kuckuck replied on July 14, 2016, and solicited the fictional father to engage in sexual activity with the fictional daughters.

After Kuckuck received no reply, he sent an additional solicitous communication to the “father.” At that point, the undercover officer responded and the two began to arrange a meeting. Kuckuck traveled later that day to an agreed-upon spot in hopes that the sexual activity would occur, but he was arrested.

After his trial, Kuckuck moved the trial court to toss out his solicitation conviction, arguing that he had impermissibly been placed in double jeopardy. Kuckuck cited State v. Shelley, 176 So.3d 914 (Fla. 2015), which held that solicitation and traveling charges (and convictions) for the same underlying conduct cannot occur. Kuckuck did not dispute the evidence against him.

The trial judge granted Kuckuck’s motion and sentenced him on only the traveling charge. But on appeal to the 5th DCA (Northeast Florida), the court rejected his double jeopardy argument and directed the trial judge to reinstate Kuckuck’s conviction (and sentence) for the solicitation. The court wrote:

“Here, the State carefully charged Kuckuck with committing solicitation on July 14 and with separately committing traveling after solicitation on July 15. The trial evidence presented by the State was consistent with the allegations. Moreover, unlike in Hughes v. State, 201 So.3d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016), where we found a double jeopardy violation based upon ‘same conduct’ when the solicitation that occurred on the first day included a plan for Hughes to travel the following day, with no additional solicitation by Hughes…”

“Here, there was no agreement reached during Kuckuck’s solicitation on the first day, July 14, for Kuckuck to meet with the ‘daughters’ for sexual conduct. There was, however, a separate, distinct solicitation by Kuckuck on July 15, resulting in an agreement reached for Kuckuck to travel on July 15 to engage in sexual conduct with the ‘daughters.’ Thus, Kuckuck’s solicitation on July 15 with the travel shortly thereafter was distinct from his criminal act of solicitation on July 14.”

In essence, the court noted that Kuckuck had made one solicitation that did not result in the traveling (July 14, 2016) and one that did result in the traveling (July 15). Because the July 14 solicitation resulted in no agreement to travel to meet the fictional minor, the 5th DCA found Kuckuck could be convicted of both offenses, as they were two separate “courses of conduct”:

“The instant case is more analogous to Griffith, which was not available to the lower court at the time of trial… We reasoned that these facts distinguished the case from Hughes, concluding that there was no double jeopardy violation because Griffith’s solicitation on February 3 and his solicitation and travel on February 4 were distinct acts and therefore did not constitute the ‘same conduct’ under Shelley…”

“Here, there is even less evidence of a double jeopardy violation than in Griffith because there was no agreement reached on July 14 for Kuckuck to travel to engage in the unlawful sexual conduct. Accordingly, we conclude that Kuckuck’s conviction for solicitation did not violate double jeopardy because it was not based upon the same conduct as the traveling conviction. We therefore reverse the trial court’s order vacating the judgment and sentence for solicitation and remand with instructions to reinstate the conviction, judgment, and sentence.”

Put simply, the 5th DCA observed a clear difference between the solicitation that served as the basis for the solicitation charge against Kuckuck, and the subsequent solicitation that served as the basis for the traveling charge. Because of this, double jeopardy was not a concern, as there were not two convictions based on the same solicitous message.

In sum, Kuckuck v. State, 232 So. 3d 530 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) is an intriguing development in Florida’s corpus of case law surrounding double jeopardy in solicitation and traveling to meet a minor cases. Often, charging someone with both of these offenses violates double jeopardy, as the elements of solicitation are entirely subsumed by the elements of traveling.

But this does not mean that ALL cases involving dual convictions for these offenses implicate double jeopardy. If the State (in the charging document) clearly separates the solicitous message that serves as grounds for the solicitation charge from the message that serves as the basis for the traveling charge, someone can be separately convicted of both solicitation and traveling.

That’s exactly what happened in Kuckuck’s case, as he sent two distinct solicitous emails – each on different days, and only one of which led to an agreement to travel. Because of this, Kuckuck engaged in “two courses of conduct,” meaning he was not placed in double jeopardy when he was convicted and sentenced on both counts.

If someone is arrested and formally charged in Florida with traveling to meet a minor and seeks to raise an 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 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