King v. State
| Decision Date | 07 October 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 48091,48091 |
| Citation | 339 So.2d 172 |
| Parties | William James KING, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, for petitioner.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
We have granted certiorari without oral argument in this case 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 Constitution.
After examining the briefs submitted by the parties to this cause, we conclude that there is a conflict in decision. Upon review of the authorities and reasoning relied on by the First and Third District Courts of Appeal in reaching the inconsistent results demonstrated by the two opinions, we are persuaded to the conclusion reached by the First District Court of Appeal. Accordingly, we adopt in its entirety the relevant portion of the opinion filed by the District Court of Appeal, First District:
'BOYER, Chief Judge.
'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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Campbell
...intend to interfere, a seeming impossibility (see, People v. Lynn, 115 Misc.2d 76, 77, 454 N.Y.S.2d 585 [App.Term, 2d Dept.]; King v. State, 339 So.2d 172 [Fla.]; Allen v. People, 175 Colo. 113, 485 P.2d 886, 888; cf., State v. Wilson, 218 Or. 575, 346 P.2d 115; see generally, 21 Am.Jur.2d,......
-
State v. Sykes
...598 F.2d 982 (5th Cir.1979); Pagano v. State, 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 (Fl......
-
State v. Thomas
...a forged instrument includes the attempt to pass a forged check as well as the actual negotiating of the forged instrument. King v. State, 339 So.2d 172 (Fla.1976). The answer is much more difficult with regard to crimes which do not themselves include an attempt. Although it may be possibl......
-
Brown v. State
...30 (Fla.1982) (no crime of attempted extortion); Adams v. Murphy, 394 So.2d 411 (Fla.1981) (no crime of attempted perjury); King v. State, 339 So.2d 172 (Fla.1976) (there is no crime of attempt to utter a forged instrument); Hestor v. State, 363 So.2d 26 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (no crime of att......