Sparks v. State, 70--395
| Decision Date | 14 January 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 70--395,70--395 |
| Citation | 256 So.2d 537 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Samuel F. SPARKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
James M. Russ, and Michael F. Cycmanick, of Law Offices of James M. Russ, Orlando, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Andrew I. Friedrich, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Samuel F. Sparks was informed against in a three-count information for (1) sale of unregistered securities, F.S. Section 517.07, F.S.A.; (2) sale of securities by an unregistered dealer, F.S. Section 517.12, F.S.A.; and (3) fraudulent sale of securities, F.S. Section 517.301, F.S.A. Each count arose out of a single transaction on May 15, 1967, in which appellant sold 10,000 shares of the authorized capital stock of Specialized Insurance Services, Inc. for $10,000. Appellant was found guilty on all counts and received a sentence on each of the three offenses, the sentences to run concurrently.
We have studied appellant's eight points on appeal and find that the only point which has merit is the one which questions the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction under the count charging fraudulent sale of securities. The purchaser of the stock, William M. McGuire, was the sole witness offering testimony relating to this count. After testifying that he and the appellant had been acquainted for some fifteen years, McGuire narrated a discussion which he had with appellant while both were attending a church meeting in Orlando in 1967:
At any rate, I saw Reverend Sparks come out the door of the building and I had heard that he had made some good money on an investment he had made and so I went to him and said, 'Sam, I heard you made some good money on an investment you have and I have ten thousand I would like to invest a little money when I can', and he said, 'The thing I am interested in now is this new company', and he named Specialized Services Insurance and said the stock was practically all gone and said, 'I have some I can spare', and he did a good selling job and I decided then and there to buy this stock and I said, 'Sparks, I only have $5,000.00', and he told me that the company didn't like to split up the certificate and he suggested that I get some others to come in with me. I didn't do that, but on friendly notes I borrowed another $5,000.00 and was able through those loans to make the final payment for the stock. What was said in the conversation, I can't recall...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edmond v. State
...Fla.1953, 69 So.2d 761; Mixon v. State, Fla.1951, 54 So.2d 190; Washington v. State, 1906, 51 Fla. 137, 40 So. 765; Sparks v. State, Fla.App.4th 1972, 256 So.2d 537; Martin v. State, Fla.App.1st 1971, 251 So.2d 283; Keenan v. State, Fla.App.2d 1971, 253 So.2d 273; Weeks v. State, Fla.App.3d......
-
FIRST FEDERAL S & L ASS'N v. MORTGAGE CORP., ETC., Civ. A. No. 75-M-2317.
...Though it would appear that Florida has not entirely abandoned the requirement of a showing of culpability, Sparks v. State, 256 So.2d 537 (Fla.App., 4th Dist.), nor yet embraced a pure negligence standard, the present hesitant growth of the Florida blue sky law accurately tracks the develo......
-
Sparks v. State
...Justice. By petition for writ of certiorari, we have for review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (Sparks v. State, 256 So.2d 537), which allegedly conflicts with several prior decisions of this Court and the other District Courts of the State on the same point of ......
-
Hudak v. Economic Research Analysts, Inc., 73-3742.
...Though it would appear that Florida has not entirely abandoned the requirement of a showing of culpability, Sparks v. State, 256 So.2d 537 (Fla.App., 4th Dist.), nor yet embraced a pure negligence standard, the present hesitant growth of the Florida blue sky law accurately tracks the develo......