ROBERT TOOMBS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
ROBERT TOOMBS, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
658 So. 2d 1105
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1995)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
FARMER, Judge.
We affirm defendant’s conviction but reverse his habitual felony offender sentence and remand for resentencing in accordance with our instructions in Hartley v. State, 650 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
STEVENSON, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Billups v. State, 690 So. 2d 1381 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…endant knowingly obtained or endeavored to obtain property of some value.3 An individual can utter a forged instrument without any intent to deprive a person of property or money — the intent may simply be to injure that person. See Parker v. State, 658 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(finding defendant attorney guilty of uttering a forgery, even though he did not intend to defraud his client of money or property by forging signatures of two circuit court judges on fictitious court orders, for he intended to “in…
-
Lewis v. State, 152 So. 3d 845 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…any person, shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree....” Falsified court orders are one kind of document that falls under the purview of the forgery statute, section 831.01, because they constitute forged public records. See Parker v. State, 658 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). The statute expressly requires proof of intent to injure or defraud; it creates no presumption of intent from the mere creation of a falsified document. Lewis correctly argued in her motion for judgment of acquittal that the sta…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Stanford Lamar v. State, 650 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)