Meythaler v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that State could have avoided the double jeopardy issue by amending the information to allege additional communications on different dates
• noting that State could have avoided the double jeopardy issue by amending the information to allege additional communications on different dates
• finding that the analysis in Shelley applied to convictions for ■ violations of sections 847.0135(3)(a) and (4)(a)
• “Accordingly, Mr. Meythaler’s convictions and sentences for solicitation and traveling after solicitation based upon the same conduct impermissibly place him in double jeopardy.”
• vacating conviction and sentence for solicitation where information alleged only single counts of solicitation and traveling based on the same conduct, but noting that if the State had 29 § 847.0135(3)(b
• “[BJecause the only solicitation offense alleged in the information occurred on the same day as the traveling offense, the double jeopardy violation is apparent on the face of the record.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).