Hazen v. Mayo
| Decision Date | 24 October 1956 |
| Citation | 90 So.2d 123 |
| Parties | John Adelbert HAZEN, Petitioner, v. Nathan MAYO, as Prison Custodian of the State of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
John Adelbert Hazen, pro se, for petitioner.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
The petitioner is imprisoned in the state prison on a charge and conviction of uttering a forged instrument. The judgment was entered after petitioner had admitted the facts forming the basis for the charge against him and had pleaded guilty to the charge. By a petition for the writ of habeas corpus, he contended that he was illegally detained because (1) the information filed against him is fatally defective, (2) he did not intend to plead guilty to the charge upon which he was convicted, and (3) the court failed to allow counsel when requested. The writ issued, the respondent filed a return thereto, and the cause is now before the court on the issues thereby made.
The information was not fatally defective. The petitioner was charged with uttering a forged bank check, knowing it to be forged, with the intent to injure the payee of the check. The check was set out in full in the information. The fact that the information did not allege, in detail, the manner in which the instrument was forged did not invalidate it. Harrell v. State, 1920, 79 Fla. 220, 83 So. 922, 923.
The endorsement of a check may be the subject of forgery. Smith v. State, Fla., 59 So.2d 625, 34 A.L.R.2d 772. The petitioner admitted that he stole a check made payable to one Anderson, wrote Anderson's name on the check, and tried unsuccessfully to get it cashed at a bar. When arrested upon information supplied by the bartender, the check was in petitioner's possession. The petitioner says that he intended to plead guilty to 'intent to create a forgery,' but that he was not guilty of 'uttering a forgery' because his attempt to cash the check was unsuccessful. What the petitioner does not understand is that it is not essential to a charge of 'uttering a forged instrument' that the utterer be successful in his attempt to defraud another. Generally 'the mere...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crusoe v. State
...passing of the forged instruments, the essence being the intent to defraud another regardless of successful consummation. Hazen v. Mayo, Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 123; Clark v. State, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 197, 80 A.L.R.2d 261. He does admit cashing the $25 check involved in case No. 91071, but ......
-
State v. Talbot
...in detail, the manner of forgery is not fatal, for the means adopted to produce the instrument are not material. Hazen v. Mayo, 90 So.2d 123, 124[1, 2] (Fla.1956). Criticisms 3 and 4 in support of respondent's exceptions, except as discussed above, have no Exceptions sustained. Demurrer sus......
-
Henderson v. State
...the forged instrument for payment, regardless of whether or not the bank actually makes any payment to the defendant. See Hazen v. Mayo, 90 So.2d 123, 124 (Fla.1956). If, for example, the bank teller detects the forgery, refuses to pay, and summons the police, the defendant has already comm......
-
King v. State
...a forged instrument as it is proved by a completed negotiation. Harrell v. State, 79 Fla. 220, 83 So. 922 (1920); Hazen v. Mayo, 90 So.2d 123 (Sup.Ct.Fla.1956).' Nevertheless, the Third District held that merely because attempted uttering is not a separate Crime from the offense of uttering......