State v. Fried, 77-682
Decision Date | 21 March 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 77-682,77-682 |
Citation | 357 So.2d 211 |
Parties | Blue Sky L. Rep. P 71,420 The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Martin FRIED, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Janet Reno, State's Atty. and Milton Robbins, Asst. State's Atty., for appellant.
Bartel, Levine & Shuford, Miami, for appellee.
Before PEARSON, NATHAN and KEHOE, JJ.
Appellant, plaintiff below, brings this appeal from an order dated March 1, 1977, entered by the trial court dismissing a criminal Information filed against appellee, defendant below. For the reasons given below, we affirm.
On October 4, 1976, appellant filed a six-count Information charging appellee with the sale of two promissory notes, allegedly in violation of Chapter 517, Florida Statutes (1975). The Information, in Counts I and IV, charged that appellee, along with two co-defendants, not appellees herein, had sold two Triex Corporation promissory notes to James Burleson, in violation of Section 517.07, Florida Statutes (1975). The Information, in Counts II and V, charged appellee with selling the notes without being registered as a dealer or salesman of securities, in violation of Section 517.12, Florida Statutes (1975). In Counts III and VI, the Information charged appellee with selling the notes in a fraudulent manner, in violation of Section 517.301(1), Florida Statutes (1975). Subsequently, appellee filed a motion to dismiss the Information on the ground that it failed to allege sufficient facts to charge a crime.
In ruling on appellee's motion to dismiss the Information, the trial court considered the Information in conjunction with, and as narrowed by, the Bill of Particulars. This was a correct procedure. See State v. Davis, 243 So.2d 587 (Fla.1971), and Heisterman v. State, 327 So.2d 839 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). After this consideration, the trial court found, as set forth in its order dismissing the Information, that the remaining allegations charged appellee with fraudulently selling an unregistered corporate note of Triex Corporation for $24,500, secured by a mortgage on certain real property, without being registered as a dealer or salesman of securities, all in violation of Chapter 517, Florida Statutes (1975). The trial court stated, in part, in its order as follows:
We are persuaded by the trial court's reasoning and agree that, under the facts of this case, the single sale of the note by appellee was not a sale of a ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Farkas, AD-32.
...for appellant. Thomas L. Powell of Douglass, Davey & Cooper, Tallahassee, for appellee. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See State v. Fried, 357 So.2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied 364 So.2d 891 (Fla. ERVIN, BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. ...
- State v. Fried
-
Criminal enforcement of Florida's securities laws.
...that are given for the purpose of investing and those that merely memorialize and secure a simple loan. For example, in State v. Fried, 357 So. 2d 211, 212 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1978), the Third District affirmed a trial court's holding that "[t]he borrowing of money in a single transaction betwe......