Skip to main content

Pinder v. State

Citations

  • 128 So. 3d 141
  • 2013 WL 5950995
  • 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 17860

How courts have described this case

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

  • stating that the defendant’s convictions under sections 847.0135(3) and (4) would have violated double jeopardy but for the fact that the solicitation occurred over an eight-day period before the defendant traveled to meet the minor
  • affirming soliciting and traveling convictions because the soliciting conduct was charged over multiple dates and the evidence established multiple offenses over multiple dates
  • finding no double jeopardy violation where evidence supported convictions for separate offenses, spanning eight days
  • finding no violation of an offender’s double-jeopardy rights where the. offender engaged in a series of conversations over the course of eight days and expressed his desire to engage in sex with the minor on multiple occasions
  • \We find no legal basis to deny a double jeopardy challenge based on uncharged conduct simply because it could have been charged.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Berger, Evander, Palmer

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

17 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.