Laytner v. State, s. 68--502
| Decision Date | 06 October 1970 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 68--502,69--974,s. 68--502 |
| Citation | 239 So.2d 857 |
| Parties | Heather LAYTNER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jack J. Taffer, Miami, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Alan M. Medof, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for appellee.
Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.
The appellant was charged in the trial court with the issuance of a worthless check, in violation of § 832.05(3), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Upon a non-jury trial, she was found guilty, judgment accordingly, and sentenced to one year in the State penitentiary. She prosecuted an appeal from this judgment of conviction under Clerk's File No. 68--502. During the pendency of the appeal, she filed a motion in the trial court seeking relief pursuant to Cr.PR 1.850, 33 F.S.A., pursuant to leave of this court. Because of delays occasioned by counsel for the appellant, 1 the petition for relief (pursuant to Cr.PR 1.850) came on to be heard after the appellant was discharged from the State penitentiary. The trial judge declined to entertain said petition, contending he lacked jurisdiction, the appellant having been released from custody. An appeal from this ruling has been duly prosecuted to this court under Clerk's File No. 69--974. These appeals have now been consolidated.
On the appeal on the merits, the appellant contends that her conviction is not supported by evidence of a violation of § 832.05(3), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., urging that the evidence indicated that the check in question was post-dated and, further, that at most the appellant should have been convicted of giving a worthless check for a preexisting debt, contrary to the provisions of § 832.05(2), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., which would have subjected her to a conviction of a misdemeanor and a maximum sentence of six months. The gist of her Cr.PR petition on the merits was that she was convicted by the use of perjured testimony as to the date of the check.
Following review of the record and briefs and after oral argument, we affirm the conviction on the merits. If there is substantial competent evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom to support a conviction, an adjudication of guilt should not be interfered with by an appellate court. Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 24; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1966, 187 So.2d 913; Evans v. State, Fla.App.1969, 218 So.2d 515. Examining the record in light of these principles, we find no error in the trial judge finding that the appellant did pass a worthless check which was not post-dated. However, the record clearly indicates that such an event was for the purpose of discharging a pre-existing debt and, therefore, the conviction for an alleged violation of § 832.05(3), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., was in error and the conviction should have been for a violation of § 832.05(2), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., with a sentence not in excess of six months. To this extent, the judgment of conviction is hereby amended to show a conviction of a violation of § 832.05(2), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. (a misdemeanor). The matter will not be returned to the trial court for a reduction in sentence because the appellant has already completed a sentence in excess of the maximum she could have been given under this conviction.
As to the denial of the relief sought by the CrPR petition, the trial judge indicated he did not believe he had jurisdiction to consider this petition because the appellant had been released. We do not concur in the reasoning of the trial judge, particularly in light of the fact that the petition had been filed while the appellant was in custody. Reynolds v. State...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Goren
...current version does not include property requirement); Ridenhour v. State, 279 Ark. 240, 650 S.W.2d 575 (1983); Laytner v. State, 239 So.2d 857, 858 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App.1970) (interpreting an earlier version of Fla. Stat. ch. 832.05[4] [2007]); People v. Cundiff, 16 Ill.App.3d 267, 269, 305 ......
-
State v. Norwood
...United States v. Pearce, 7 Alaska 246, 248, 250 (1924); Ridenhour v. State, 650 S.W.2d 575, 576-77 (Ark. 1983); Laytner v. State, 239 So.2d 857, 858 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1970); People v. Cundiff, 305 N.E.2d 735, 738 (Ill. App. Ct. 1973); Martin, 821 S.W.2d at 97; State v. McLean, 44 So.2d 6......
-
State v. Kanter
...257 So.2d 73; In re Adoption of Taylor, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 476; City of Hollywood v. Peck, Fla.1952, 57 So.2d 842; Laytner v. State, Fla.App.1970, 239 So.2d 857; State v. Harris, Fla.1962, 136 So.2d 633. The question presented to us is one which the trial court has the power to adjudic......
-
Lane v. State, 77-73
...See, e. g., Spinkellink v. State, 313 So.2d 666 (Fla.1975); Thomas v. State, 296 So.2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Laytner v. State, 239 So.2d 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); Carroll v. State, 186 So.2d 834 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966); Wright v. State, 182 So.2d 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); and Savage v. State, 156......