IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
STATE OF FLORIDA, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
Appellant/Cross-Appellee, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
v. CASE NO. 1D13-570 & 1D 13-907
JERMAINE FRANKLIN DAVIS,
Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
_____________________________/
Opinion filed July 18, 2016.
An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Alachua County.
Mark W. Moseley, Judge.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Donna A. Gerace, Assistant Attorney
General, Tallahassee, and Katrina Harden, Assistant State Attorney, Gainesville,
for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, A. Victoria Wiggins, Assistant Public
Defender, Tallahassee, and Rachael J. Morris, Assistant Public Defender,
Gainesville, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
ON REMAND FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
PER CURIAM.
We previously affirmed Davis’s convictions for unlawful use of computer
service in violation of section 847.0135(3)(a), Florida Statutes, and traveling to
meet a minor in violation of section 847.0135(4)(a). State v. Davis, 141 So. 3d
1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). The Florida Supreme Court then quashed our decision
and remanded for reconsideration in light of State v. Shelley, 176 So. 3d 914 (Fla.
2015), which held that double jeopardy principles prohibit separate convictions for
solicitation under section 847.0135(3)(b) and traveling to meet a minor after
solicitation pursuant to section 847.0135(4)(b) if based on the same conduct.
In response to our show cause order following remand, the State indicated
that under Shelley and the specific facts of this case, Davis’s conviction and
sentence for unlawful use of a computer service to solicit a minor should be
vacated. We agree, so we reverse and remand for the trial court to vacate that
conviction and sentence. We do not disturb this Court’s earlier decision rejecting
Davis’s other contentions. *
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED with instructions.
WETHERELL, JAY, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
*
Nor do we disturb this Court’s decision affirming the sentence. The State
appealed the trial court’s downward departure, and a divided panel affirmed. State
v. Davis, 141 So. 3d 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). The State unsuccessfully
petitioned for Supreme Court review, and we do not revisit the sentencing issue
here. Because the trial court must vacate one conviction, though, it will need to
resentence accordingly.
2