Waterman v. State, 74--883
| Decision Date | 15 August 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--883,74--883 |
| Citation | 317 So.2d 469 |
| Parties | M. J. WATERMAN a/k/a Mark Jay Waterman a/k/a James Waterman, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Gerald Kogan, Miami, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Frank B. Kessler, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Appellant-Waterman was guilty of grand larceny but because of prosecutorial ineptness 1 his conviction must be set aside.
Appellant was president of Tri-County Mortgage Company which was engaged in the business of servicing mortgages. In May, 1969, Mrs. Dora Pierson advanced the sum of $6,000.00 to Tri-County Mortgage Company which in turn delivered that sum to Mr. and Mrs. Pasquale Prignaro as a loan, evidenced by a note and secured by a mortgage on the Prignaro property. Mrs. Pierson was named as mortgagee but the monthly installments were paid to Tri-County which in turn remitted monthly to Mrs. Pierson. Up until June 1, 1972 Mrs. Pierson received from Tri-County an installment payment each month, but when the June 1, 1972 installment was two weeks delinquent inquiry of appellant was made. It developed that not only had Prignaro paid each installment as due, but also on a number of occasions had paid an additional installment, so that by May, 1972, the loan had been repaid in full. Appellant's explanation to Mrs. Pierson as to why she would not be receiving any more payments on the Prignaro mortgage was relatively simple: the note and mortgage had been paid in full by Prignaro and appellant had used the unremitted amount for the support of his family.
The State elected to charge appellant with grand larceny under the provisions of Fla.Stat. § 811.021(1)(a) (1969) in the following language:
'M. J. Waterman . . . on the first day of June A.D. 1972, in the County and State aforesaid, did then and there unlawfully take from the possession of the true owner or another person personal property, to wit: Proceeds of mortgage deed and note, the property of Dora Pierson, said personal property being then and there of the value of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) or more, good and lawful money of the United States of America, In that the said Defendant did then and there obtain such property from possession of the true owner thereof by fraudulent representation, and with the intent to permanently deprive the said Dora Pierson of her property, or the use and benefit thereof, contrary to F.S. 811.021(1)(a).' (e.s.)
Subsequently, under court order to furnish a statement of particulars, the State alleged that the fraudulent representation made by defendant was:
'. . . that Dora Pierson would receive all monies and/or proceeds due from mortgage deed and note dated May 5, 1969 until full amount of mortgage note was paid to Dora Pierson.'
We cannot surmise why the State, with knowledge of the above facts which would clearly support a charge of grand larceny under several of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lash v. State
...1st DCA 1980); Paulk v. State, 344 So.2d 304 (Fla.2d DCA 1977); Colangelo v. State, 320 So.2d 826 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Waterman v. State, 317 So.2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); see Scarlett v. State, 25 Fla. 717, 6 So. 767 (1889), in the absence of evidence that the defendant knew at the time t......
-
Paulk v. State, 76--313
...767 (1889); Abernathy v. State, 333 So.2d 42 (Fla.4th DCA 1976); Colangelo v. State, 320 So.2d 826 (Fla.4th DCA 1975); Waterman v. State, 317 So.2d 469 (Fla.4th DCA 1975). ...
-
Martin v. State, OO-19
...pretenses. We find this to be the settled law in this State. Colangelo v. State, 320 So.2d 826 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Waterman v. State, 317 So.2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Scarlett v. State, 25 Fla. 717, 6 So. 767 We also find the evidence insufficient to constitute a crime under the theory o......
-
Biederman v. State
...there are various other sections of the statutes which these defendants might have been charged with violating. See Waterman v. State, 317 So.2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). alleging that the indictment failed to charge a crime because the false representations in question pertained to promises......