THOMAS EARL PETERSON, APPELLANT,
v.
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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment and sentence for forgery and uttering bank checks, finding no merit in the defendant's arguments and sufficient evidence to support the conviction.
No, the trial court did not err in denying the motion for a new trial, and the evidence was sufficient to support the judgment and sentence.
“We have reviewed all papers contained in the case, including the briefs and transcript of proceedings, and find that the points assigned by appellant are without merit.”
Establishes the appellate court's review and initial finding regarding the appellant's arguments.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was charged with two counts of forging and uttering bank checks, each for $68.50. He was represented by counsel at trial, and the jury f…
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 Forged Instruments cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, defendant in the trial court, was charged with forging and uttering certain bank checks in the amount of $68.50 each in two counts in violation of Section 831.01 and 831.02 of Florida Statutes, F.S.A. Defendant was represented by public defender at the time of arraignment and by private counsel at the time of trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty and the trial court adjudged the defendant guilty as charged and sentenced him to serve five years on each count with sentences to run concurrently. After denial of defendant’s motion for a new trial, this appeal followed.
We have reviewed all papers contained in the case, including the briefs and transcript of proceedings, and find that the points assigned by appellant are without merit. The trial court committed no error in denial of the motion for new trial and the evidence is wholly sufficient to support the judgment and sentence. For these reasons the decision of the trial court is affirmed.
ALLEN, C. J., and LILES and PIERCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parry v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 407 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…d have directed a verdict for the appellant when requested. Thompson v. Jacobs, 314 [*938] So. 2d 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Dixson v. Kattel, 311 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Clements v. Plummer, 250 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); Corum v. Warren, 200 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967). REVERSED for entry of judgment for appellant. ORFINGER and COWART, JJ., concur.…