KYLE WILLIS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that filling in a blank payee line on a check with one's own name constitutes forgery under Florida law.
The defendant stole a pre-signed check, filled in his own name as the payee, and cashed it. He was convicted of forgery and uttering a forged instrume…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Uttering A Forged Instrument cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Kyle Willis appeals his conviction for forgery and uttering a forged instrument. We affirm.
Defendant-appellant was employed by a business in Key West. The business owner had left a check for another employee to pick up. The check was signed and filled out for $290 which the owner owed the employee, but the payee line was left blank.
The defendant stole the check, filled in his name on the payee line, and cashed the check at a local liquor store. He was convicted of theft, forgery, and uttering a forged instrument. He does not challenge the conviction for theft.
On this appeal the defendant contends that his conduct does not qualify as forgery under section 831.01, Florida Statutes (2001), which provides in relevant part that “[w]hoever falsely makes, alters, forges or counterfeits .... an order ... for money ... with intent to injure or defraud any person, shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree.... ”
We conclude that the defendant’s conduct qualifies as the crime of forgery. He falsely made or altered the check by inserting his name as payee, with the intent to obtain $290 to which he was not entitled. See Rushing v. State, 684 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Ausburn v. State, 216 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rushing v. State, 684 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Ausburn v. State, 216 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Hall v. McDONOUGH, 216 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)