Edwards v. State
| Decision Date | 17 June 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 68--1109,68--1109 |
| Citation | 223 So.2d 746 |
| Parties | Charles Frank EDWARDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender, and Michael G. Martin, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before CHARLES CARROLL, C.J., and PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ.
The appellant was found guilty of and sentenced for the crime of 'Attempting to Utter a Forged Instrument'. He contends that there is no such crime in this state and that because he was specifically found not guilty of the crime of uttering a forged instrument he must be discharged. We disagree and therefore affirm.
Appellant was charged by an information in two counts with (1) forgery of a check; (2) uttering of a forged check. At the conclusion of the trial before the court, the appellant moved for a judgment of acquittal. The court found appellant not guilty on count one but adjudicated him guilty of 'attempted uttering a forged instrument, as to Count Two, based upon the testimony.' Subsequently when the judgment was entered, it read that the conviction was for 'attempting to utter a forged instrument.'
There is no distinction at law between uttering a forged instrument and attempting to utter a forged instrument. This is true because an uttering is proved as fully by an attempt to negotiate a forged instrument as it is proved by a completed negotiation. Harrell v. State, 79 Fla. 220, 83 So. 922 (1920); Hazen v. Mayo, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 123.
Section 919.16, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., provides that upon an information charging a defendant with an offense, the defendant may be convicted of an attempt to commit such offense 'if such attempt is an offense.' The question thus becomes: If an attempt to utter a forged instrument is not a crime separate from uttering a forged instrument, is it 'an offense' within the meaning of § 919.16? We hold that the fact that an attempt to utter a forged instrument is also the uttering of a forged instrument does not mean that an attempt to utter a forged instrument is not an offense. It would seem illogical to hold that because an attempt is as large as the crime, it is not a crime. It is true that the attempt is not a separate crime; but it is an offense. We presume that the trial judge was fully aware of the law that an attempt to utter a forged instrument may be punished as the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sykes
...an acquittal, of the crime itself. I would recede from Pagano v. State, 387 So.2d 349 (Fla.1980), adopt the holding of Edwards v. State, 223 So.2d 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), apply McIntyre v. State, 380 So.2d 1064 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), to the facts of this case, and endorse the sound reasoning o......
-
Sykes v. State
...where the attempt is merged with the crime itself, the appellate courts (with exception of the Third District, Edwards v. State, 223 So.2d 746 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1969), have avoided reversal by employing the "no crime" rationale. When faced with a jury conviction of a similar "attempt" offense, ......
-
King v. State
...because of conflict between the opinion of the District Court of Appeal, First District, reported at 317 So.2d 852, and Edwards v. State, 223 So.2d 746 (Fla.3d DCA 1969). We have jurisdiction under Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida After examining the briefs submitted by the parties to th......
-
King v. State, V--447
...that attempted uttering is an offense cognizable under Florida law. In support of this proposition, appellant relies on Edwards v. State, Fla.App.3rd 1969, 223 So.2d 746. For reasons expressed below, we refuse to follow the reasoning of the Third District as revealed in the Edwards case. As......