Being convicted of both computer solicitation of a minor and travel after solicitation can violate double jeopardy in Florida. The Sixth District Court of Appeal said so on November 6, 2026, in Neu v. State, No. 6D2024-0677, an appeal from Polk County. The court reversed the solicitation conviction and sent the case back for resentencing, and it asked the Florida Supreme Court to reconsider the rule it had to apply.
What happened in the computer solicitation case. A jury convicted Lawrence Alan Neu of computer solicitation of a minor for sex (count 6), attempted lewd battery on a child (count 7) and travel for sex with a minor after computer solicitation (count 8). Counts 6 and 8 were both charged under section 847.0135 and both alleged conduct “between June 2, 2022 and June 3, 2022.” The sentence was seven years in prison on count 8, followed by five years of sex offender probation on each of counts 6 and 7, to run concurrently.
Why the second conviction fell. The Florida Supreme Court held in State v. Shelley, a case about solicitation of a minor’s parent, that the elements of solicitation are entirely subsumed by the elements of travel after solicitation, so double jeopardy bars separate convictions based on the same conduct. The Sixth District reasoned that the parallel provisions on solicitation of a child work the same way. Under Lee v. State, a court deciding whether there were separate acts may look only at the charging document, and the document has to “make clear” that the State “relied on separate conduct to charge the offenses.” Here, the two counts had identical dates and consistent locations and nothing else to distinguish them.
Preservation and charging language. Neu did not raise the issue in the trial court. The court said “a violation of double jeopardy constitutes fundamental error that may be raised for the first time on appeal.” It also noted that the five transmission counts each said the conduct was “separate and distinct from” the others. The court did not require that wording and said the State can differentiate conduct by “time, place, or circumstances.”
The certified question. The State acknowledged the court is bound by Lee but argued it was wrongly decided. The court, on the State’s motion for certification, vacated its September 5, 2025 opinion and substituted this one, which adds the certification. It agreed the Supreme Court “should revisit Lee” and certified the question whether a reviewing court is limited to the charging document or may consider the entire record. The opinion is not final until the time to file a motion for rehearing expires and any timely motion is decided.
Related decisions: Does the Speedy Trial Clock Start at the First Arrest if Police Find Different Drugs in the Same Car? Not Always Can a Court Order a Civil Commitment Center Dorm Change After Threats From Other Residents? Not on These Allegations, Second DCA Holds
Read the opinion (PDF): Download the opinion (PDF)
Also on Florida Lawyer News: Can Florida Punish a Defendant for Both Computer Solicitation of a Minor and Travel After Solicitation? The Sixth DCA Says Not Unless the Charges Show Separate Conduct
Source: Neu v. State, No. 6D2024-0677 (Fla. 6th DCA Nov. 6, 2026). This article is general information, not legal advice.