Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

135 So. 3d 364

State v. Jiborn

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided January 10, 2014

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2014-01-10

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 2019

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[a]ppellate review is authorized pursuant to Rule 9.140(c)(1)(A)”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Espinoza

Relies on State v. Wilson · 604 So. 2d 824 - State v. Feagle

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2014-01-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PALMER, J.

¶1The State of Florida appeals the order entered by the trial court granting the motion to dismiss the amended information filed by Lars Jiborn (defendant), which charged him with traveling to meet a minor for an unlawful sexual act and solicita*365tion of a minor via computer.1 We reverse.2

¶2The charges against the defendant stemmed from email and text correspondence between the defendant and an undercover police officer, who the defendant believed to be the mother of a 14-year-old child. The trial court entered an order granting the defendant’s dismissal motion, concluding that the defendant could not violate these statutes without having direct communication with a child. In State v. Wilson, Case No. 18-387, 128 So.3d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA Dec. 27, 2013), we considered an essentially identical factual situation and reversed the trial court’s dismissal order. For the reasons articulated in Wilson, we reverse the instant order, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

¶3REVERSED and REMANDED.

LAWSON and COHEN, JJ„ concur.

¶4. See § 847.0135(3)(a),(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011).

¶5. Appellate review is authorized pursuant to rule 9.140(c)(1)(A) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. See State v. Feagle, 604 So.2d 824 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

/135/so3d/364 · .json · Public domain