Littleman v. State

Based on State v. Murphy, 124 So.Sd 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), we affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence and reject his argument that his convictions on Counts 3 and 4 (use of a computer service to solicit a person believed to be a minor to engage in sexual conduct, § 847.0135(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2012), and use of a computer service to solicit a person believed to be the guardian of the minor to consent to the minor’s participation in sexual conduct, § 847.0135(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (2012)) violate double jeopardy because the offenses in those counts are subsumed within the offense for which he…