Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Tyler Sherman v. State of Florida, 13-4464 (2019)

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida Number: 13-4464 Visitors: 16
Filed: May 16, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _ No. 1D13-4464 _ TYLER SHERMAN, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County. James C. Hankinson, Judge. May 16, 2019 ON REMAND FROM FLORIDA SUPREME COURT PER CURIAM. We twice earlier affirmed Appellant’s separate convictions for solicitation (in violation of section 847.0135(3)(a), Florida Statutes), and traveling to meet a minor after solicitation (in violation of section 847.0135(4)(a)). See Sherm
More
         FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                         No. 1D13-4464
                 _____________________________

TYLER SHERMAN,

    Appellant,

    v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

    Appellee.
                 _____________________________


On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.
James C. Hankinson, Judge.

                          May 16, 2019

           ON REMAND FROM FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

PER CURIAM.

     We twice earlier affirmed Appellant’s separate convictions for
solicitation (in violation of section 847.0135(3)(a), Florida
Statutes), and traveling to meet a minor after solicitation (in
violation of section 847.0135(4)(a)). See Sherman v. State, 
160 So. 3d
494 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); Sherman v. State, 
247 So. 3d 663
(Fla.
1st DCA 2015). The Florida Supreme Court has now quashed our
more recent decision, remanding for reconsideration in light of Lee
v. State, 
258 So. 3d 1297
(Fla. 2018). See Sherman v. State, No.
SC18-949 (Fla. Apr. 16, 2019). In Lee, the 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 should consider
only the charging 
document.” 258 So. 3d at 1299
. Applying that
rule here, we must reverse the lesser conviction. On remand, the
trial court should resentence for the remaining conviction. We
otherwise affirm.

    REVERSED in part; AFFIRMED in part.

WOLF 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.
               _____________________________


Ethan Andrew Way of Gillis Way & Campbell, Tallahassee, for
Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Angela R. Hensel, 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