## Facts

- The defendant was prosecuted in Florida for multiple offenses arising from a single course of conduct involving attempts to engage in unlawful sexual activity with a purported minor.
- The State charged offenses that, as pleaded, overlapped in time and conduct, including: solicitation of a minor, use of a two-way communications device to facilitate a sex offense, and traveling after solicitation.
- At trial, the State relied on communications and related steps by the defendant as proof of the separate counts, with the evidence describing closely related acts occurring as part of the same episode.
- The defendant was convicted and sentenced on multiple counts.
- On appeal, the defendant argued that multiple convictions violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy because the convictions punished the same offense under different statutory labels.
- The State responded that each statute required proof of a distinct element and that the charging document, on its face, permitted separate convictions.

## Issues

1. Whether double jeopardy analysis for overlapping convictions turns solely on the allegations in the charging document or may consider the entire record (including trial evidence and arguments).
2. Whether convictions for solicitation of a minor, use of a two-way communications device, and traveling after solicitation, when based on the same conduct, constitute multiple punishments for the same offense.
3. What method courts must use to determine whether the legislature authorized cumulative punishments for closely related sex-offense statutes when the charged acts and proof substantially overlap.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court held that courts are not limited to the four corners of the charging document when evaluating double jeopardy claims involving overlapping convictions.
- The Court approved examining the full record to determine whether the convictions are based on distinct criminal acts or on the same act or episode.
- The Court concluded that, when the record shows that multiple counts rest on the same conduct (rather than separate, independently punishable acts), multiple convictions and punishments violate double jeopardy absent clear legislative authorization.
- The Court reversed in part and remanded with directions to grant appropriate double jeopardy relief consistent with its record-based analysis.

## Legal Principles

- Double jeopardy prohibits multiple punishments for the same offense unless the legislature has clearly authorized cumulative punishments.
- Determining whether multiple convictions punish the same offense may require more than a comparison of statutory elements; courts may also assess whether the convictions were actually proven by separate acts.
- When charges and proof substantially overlap, courts may consult the entire record (including evidence and how the State presented the case) to identify whether distinct criminal acts support each conviction.
- Where the record indicates that multiple convictions are supported by the same act or episode, at least one conviction must be vacated or otherwise remedied unless statutory text clearly permits cumulative punishment for that conduct.

## Conclusion

The Florida Supreme Court required a record-based approach to double jeopardy challenges involving overlapping sex-offense convictions, holding that courts may look beyond the charging document to determine whether separate counts were proven by distinct acts and to prevent multiple punishments for the same conduct without clear legislative authorization.


Lee v. State, 258 So. 3d 1297 (Fla. 2018)