CHARLES EDWARD BARGE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Uttering Forged Instruments cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Charles Edward Barge, was found guilty by a jury of nine counts of forgery, nine counts of uttering forgeries, and one count of grand theft. Barge appeals the convictions, claiming, among other issues, that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he forged the checks, and that he therefore could not be convicted of forgery, uttering forgeries and grand theft. Our review of the record indicates that the evidence presented by the State was sufficient to prove that the nine checks were forged, and that Barge uttered them, knowing that they were forged. While the evidence was sufficient to prove that appellant uttered the nine forged checks and committed grand theft, the evidence was insufficient to prove that appellant forged any of the nine checks. See Clark v. State, 737 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). We therefore reverse the forgery convictions, but affirm in all other respects.
AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.
JOANOS, MINER and DAVIS, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Watkins v. State, 826 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…appellant relies upon two of this Court’s opinions where we reversed the appellants’ forgery convictions because the State failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove that the appellants committed forgery as to stolen checks. See Barge v. State, 747 So. 2d 481, 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); see also Clark v. State, 737 So. 2d 634, 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). If the State had proceeded only on the forgery charge, instead of then averring that appellant was a principal to such charge, both Barge and Clark would be…
-
State v. S.A., 133 So. 3d 506 (Fla. 2014)…RIAM. We review the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision in State v. S.A., 96 So. 3d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), which the Fourth District certified is in direct conflict with the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s decision in State v. McFarland, 747 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), rev. denied, 767 So. 2d 458 (Fla.2000), regarding how the speedy trial rule’s recapture window should be calculated.1 Based on the plain language of the speedy trial rule, we approve the Fifth District’s decision in McFarland ca…
-
Armas v. State, 811 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…of time begins to run is not to be included.... ’ ” Vining, 637 So. 2d at 925. See State v. Naveira, 768 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); State v. Edwards, 528 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 534 So. 2d 399 (Fla.1988); State v. McFarland, 747 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 767 So. 2d 458 (Fla.2000). Following Rule 3.040’s dictate, the date on which the defendant files the notice of expiration is not to be counted, notwithstanding any language in Committee Notes that may seem to contradic…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Parker v. State, 737 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Clark v. State, 737 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)