King v. State, V--447
| Citation | 317 So.2d 852 |
| Decision Date | 28 August 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. V--447,V--447 |
| Parties | Willie James KING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and David J. Busch, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
We here consider the issue of whether there exists under Florida law the offense of attempted uttering of a forged instrument. Appellant, defendant below, was charged with and convicted of uttering a forged instrument as defined by F.S. 831.02. He argued unsuccessfully in the court below that the jury should be instructed as to a lesser included offense of attempted uttering, pursuant to Rule 3.510, RCrP.
Appellant realizes that in order for the trial judge to instruct the jury on the attempt, he must establish 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 recognized by the Third District in its decision, Nevertheless, the Third District held that merely because attempted uttering is not a separate Crime from the offense of uttering itself, attempted uttering may be considered a separate Offense for the purposes of F.S. 919.16. 1 Logic dictates to us a different conclusion. If a crime is itself an attempt to do an act or accomplish a result, there can be no attempt to commit that crime. (22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 74) We, therefore, hold that there is no offense nor crime under Florida law of attempt to utter a forged instrument. Accordingly, the trial court was correct in refusing to give the standard jury instruction on attempt as requested by the appellant.
1 The language in F.S. 919.16 is virtually identical to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...exist as an offense. Adams[ v. Murphy, 394 So.2d 411 (Fla.1981)]; State v. Thomas, 362 So.2d 1348 (Fla.1978). See also King v. State, 317 So.2d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). We now hold that there are offenses that may be successfully prosecuted as an attempt without proof of a specific intent t......
-
State v. Sykes
...387 So.2d 349 (Fla.1980); Milazzo v. State, 377 So.2d 1161 (Fla.1979); King v. State, 339 So.2d 172 (Fla.1976), affirming 317 So.2d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); McAbee v. State, 391 So.2d 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Silvestri v. State, 332 So.2d 351 (Fla. 4th DCA), approved, 340 So.2d 928 By defini......
-
Adams v. Murphy, 57451
...offense. See, e. g., State v. Thomas, 362 So.2d 1348 (Fla.1978) (attempted possession of burglary tools is not a crime); King v. State, 317 So.2d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (attempted uttering of a forged instrument is not a crime). In King v. State, the defendant was charged with uttering a f......
-
Gentry v. State
...the attempt thereof simply does not exist as an offense. Adams; State v. Thomas, 362 So.2d 1348 (Fla.1978). See also King v. State, 317 So.2d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). We now hold that there are offenses that may be successfully prosecuted as an attempt without proof of a specific intent to ......