Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Nathan Dygart v. State of Florida, 13-4977 (2019)

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida Number: 13-4977 Visitors: 9
Filed: May 13, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _ No. 1D13-4977 _ NATHAN DYGART, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County. Jackie L. Fulford. May 13, 2019 ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT PER CURIAM. This court earlier affirmed Dygart’s convictions, concluding that there was no double-jeopardy violation. See Dygart v. State, 247 So. 3d 655 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). The Florida Supreme Court has now quashed that decision, remanding for recons
More
         FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                         No. 1D13-4977
                 _____________________________

NATHAN DYGART,

    Appellant,

    v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

    Appellee.
                  ___________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.
Jackie L. Fulford.

                          May 13, 2019

         ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

PER CURIAM.

     This court earlier affirmed Dygart’s convictions, concluding
that there was no double-jeopardy violation. See Dygart v. State,
247 So. 3d 655
(Fla. 1st DCA 2018). The Florida Supreme Court
has now quashed that decision, remanding for reconsideration
based on the intervening decision in Lee v. State, 
258 So. 3d 1297
(Fla. 2018). See Dygart v. State, SC18-968 (Fla. Apr. 12, 2019).

     In Lee, the Florida Supreme Court held “that to determine
whether multiple convictions of solicitation of a minor, unlawful
use of a two-way communications device, and traveling after
solicitation of a minor are based upon the same conduct for
purposes of double jeopardy, the reviewing court may consider only
the charging document.” 
Lee, 258 So. 3d at 1304
. Looking only at
the information in this case, we cannot conclude one way or the
other whether the State based the two charged counts (one for
solicitation and one for travel following solicitation) on the same
solicitation. In this circumstance, Lee requires that we reverse the
lesser conviction.

    AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.

WINOKUR and WINSOR, JJ., concur; MAKAR, J., concurs in result
only.

                 _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Kathleen Stover, Assistant
Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Giselle D. Lylen, Assistant
Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.




                                 2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer