DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDASECOND DISTRICT
GARY BOARDWINE,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 2D2024-1353
January 16, 2026
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Kimberly K.Fernandez, Judge.
Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Andrea M. Norgard, Assistant PublicDefender, Bartow, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and William C.Shelhart, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
A jury found Gary Boardwine guilty of use of computer services ordevices to solicit certain illegal acts and the unlawful use of a two-waycommunication device. We affirm Mr. Boardwine's judgment for use ofcomputer services or devices to solicit certain illegal acts withoutcomment. But we are compelled to vacate Mr. Boardwine's judgment
Original opinion page 2
2and sentence for unlawful use of a two-way communication devicebecause it violates the prohibition against double jeopardy. See Lee v.State, 258 So. 3d 1297, 1301-02 (Fla. 2018); Mizner v. State, 154 So. 3d391, 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (vacating the appellant's conviction forunlawful use of a two-way communication device on double jeopardygrounds where the appellant was additionally convicted for using devicesto solicit certain illegal acts).Because we reverse that judgment and sentence, Mr. Boardwine isentitled to be resentenced on his conviction for use of computer servicesor devices to solicit certain illegal acts. Upon resentencing the lowercourt shall sentence Mr. Boardwine using a corrected scoresheet thatlists only his actual convictions. SeeFernandez v. State, 199 So. 3d 500,502 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with directions.KELLY, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, and LABRIT, JJ., Concur.Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Opinion text and original PDF from Florida Second District Court of Appeal · Source opinion