WILLIAM LARRY RUSHING, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1996-12-13
No. 96-1396
PETERSON, C.J., and GRIFFIN and ANTOON, JJ., concur.
684 So. 2d 856 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1996) Positive Treatment
Cited by 16 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

Rushing was convicted of forgery for signing a friend's name to two traffic tickets. The court affirmed, holding that signing another's name on a traffic citation constitutes forgery because the signature functions as an appearance bond with legal efficacy.


Holding

Signing another's name to a traffic citation constitutes the offense of forgery. A traffic ticket signature operates as an appearance bond and serves to establish notice of the hearing, satisfying the legal efficacy requirement for forgery. The felony prosecution for forgery is permissible even if the same conduct could be treated as a misdemeanor under a separate statute.


Headnotes

[1] A conviction for forgery requires the making of a writing which falsely purports to be the writing of another, with the intent to injure or defraud, and the instrument mu…

[2] Signing another person's name to a traffic citation constitutes forgery, as the citation serves as an appearance bond and notice of a hearing.

Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“Under this statute, a conviction for forgery requires the making of a writing which falsely purports to be the writing of another. See State v. Escobedo, 404 So.2d 760 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), review denied, 412 So.2d 464 (Fla.1982). The writing must be made with intent to injure or defraud any person. Id. Finally, the instrument must have some legal efficacy.”

Establishes the three-part test for forgery conviction that the court applies to Rushing's case

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Rushing signed a friend's name to two traffic tickets. He was charged with two counts of forgery and one count of obstructing an officer in the lawful…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Rushing was charged with two counts of forgery1 and one count of obstructing an officer in the lawful execution of a legal duty2 for signing a friend’s name to two traffic tickets. He argues on appeal that his crime was merely the misdemeanor offense of making a false official statement in writing under section 837.06, Florida Statutes (1993), not forgery, the crime of which he was convicted. We affirm.

Section 831.01, Florida Statutes (1995), defines the crime of forgery as follows:

Whoever falsely makes, alters, forges or counterfeits a public record, or a certificate, return or attestation of any clerk or register of a court, public register, notary public, town clerk or any public officer, in relation to a matter where such certificate, return or attestation may be received as legal proof; or a charter, deed, will, testament, bond, or writing obligatory, letter of attorney, policy of insurance, bill of lading, bill of exchange or promissory note, or an order, acquittance, or discharge for money or other property, or an acceptance of a bill of exchange or promissory note for the payment of money, or any receipt for money, goods, or other property, or any passage ticket, pass or other evidence of transportation issued by a common carrier, with intent to injure or defraud any person, shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.088, or s. 775.084.

Under this statute, a conviction for forgery requires the making of a writing which falsely purports to be the writing of another. See State v. Escobedo, 404 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), review denied, 412 So. 2d 464 (Fla.1982). The writing must be made with intent to injure or defraud any person. Id. Finally, the instrument must have some legal efficacy. Id.

We conclude that signing another’s name to a traffic citation does constitute the offense of forgery. A defendant’s signature on a traffic ticket seems to operate as an appearance bond, so signing another’s name on a ticket would be forgery. See § 318.14, Fla. Stat. (1993) (“Except as provided in s. 316.1001(2) [pertaining to toll roads], any person cited for an infraction under this section must sign and accept a citation indicating a promise to appear.”); Nikolic v. State, 439 So. 2d 828 (Ala.Crim.App.1983) (stating in dicta that a traffic ticket would support a conviction for forgery because the ticket serves as an appearance bond once the defendant has signed it). The ticket also operates to establish that a defendant has received notice of the hearing. Holding that signing a false name on a traffic ticket constitutes forgery also appears to be consistent with Davis v. State, 111 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959), where the First District held that signing a false name to an appearance bond issued by a bonding company constitutes the offense of forgery.3 Moreover, prosecuting the offenses as the felony of forgery, even if the same conduct is treated as a misdemeanor by a separate statute, is permissible. See State v. Cogswell, 521 So. 2d 1081 (Fla.1988).4

AFFIRMED.

PETERSON, C.J., and GRIFFIN and ANTOON, JJ., concur. .- § 831.01, Fla. Stat. (1993).

. § 843.02, Fla. Stat. (1993).

. See also Thornton v. State, 636 N.E. 2d 140 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) (defendant who signed name of another on fingerprint card made at time of arrest committed forgery, where signature was made with intent to defraud by concealing defendant’s true identity and criminal record); Charles E. Tocia, 4 Wharton's Criminal Law § 496 (1981) (one who signs another’s name commits forgery).

. Independent of this analysis, we also find the evidence sufficient to sustain Rushing's conviction for obstructing an officer in the lawful execution of a legal duty.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Watkins v. State, 826 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
    …f the third degree.... Thus, the crime of forgery requires the making of a writing that falsely purports to be the writing of another, with the intent to defraud. Walters v. State, 245 So. 2d 907, 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); see also Rushing v. State, 684 So. 2d 856, 857 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). In support of his Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and on appeal, appellant relies upon two of this Court’s opinions where we reversed the appellants’ forgery convictions because the State failed to produce sufficient evid…
  • Dixon v. State, 812 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
    …used the forged traffic citation, separately from the information, to charge and convict Appellant with a traffic offense. Rather, the forged traffic citation was intended for use by the State as evidence in the forgery charge. See Rushing v. State, 684 So. 2d 856, 857 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)(holding that “[a] defendant’s signature on a traffic ticket seems to operate as an appearance bond, so signing another’s name on a ticket would be forgery” pursuant to § 831.01). A traffic citation issued to the wrong perso…
    1 / 2
  • Pradip Jamnadas v. Mohan Singh, 731 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
    …r Florida law where the defendant makes a writing which falsely purports to be the writing of another, made with the intent to injure or defraud any person. The instrument in question additionally must have some legal efficacy. See Rushing v. State, 684 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), rev. denied, 694 So. 2d 739 (Fla.1997). See also § 831.01, Fla. Stat.2 The complaint alleges facts tending to establish each of these elements. It is alleged that the Singhs made writings which falsely purport to be the writings…

Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw