CHARLES FRANK EDWARDS, 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.
Edwards was convicted of attempting to utter a forged instrument and argued no such separate crime existed in Florida law. The court affirmed, holding that attempting to utter a forged instrument constitutes an offense even though it is not a separate crime from uttering itself, and therefore a conviction on that charge is valid.
An attempt to utter a forged instrument is an offense under Florida law even though it is not a separate crime from uttering a forged instrument. The court held that attempting to utter and uttering a forged instrument are legally indistinguishable, and a conviction for attempting to utter is valid because an uttering is proved as fully by an attempt to negotiate a forged instrument as by a completed negotiation.
“There is no distinction at law between uttering a forged instrument and attempting to utter a forged instrument. This is true because an uttering is proved as fully by an attempt to negotiate a forged instrument as it is proved by a completed negotiation.”
Establishes the core legal principle that attempted uttering and completed uttering are legally equivalent, supporting the validity of the conviction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdwards was charged with two counts: forgery of a check and uttering a forged check. After trial before the court, the judge found him not guilty of 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 A Forged Instrument cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was found guilty of and sentenced for the crime of “Attempting to Utter a Forged Instrument”. He contends that there is no such crime in this state and that because he was specifically found not guilty of the crime of uttering a forged instrument he must be discharged. We disagree and therefore affirm.
Appellant was charged by an information in two counts with (1) forgery of a check; (2) uttering of a forged check. At the conclusion of the trial before the court, the appellant moved for a judgment of acquittal. The court found appellant not guilty on count one but adjudicated him guilty of “attempted uttering a forged instrument, as to Count Two, based upon the testimony.” Subsequently when the judgment was entered, it read that the conviction was for “attempting to utter a forged instrument.”
There is no distinction at law between uttering a forged instrument and attempting to utter a forged instrument. This is true because an uttering is proved as fully by an attempt to negotiate a forged instrument as it is proved by a completed negotiation. Harrell v. State, 79 Fla. 220, 83 So. 922 (1920); Hazen v. Mayo, Fla. 1956, 90 So.2d 123.
Section 919.16, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., provides that upon an information charging a defendant with an offense, the defendant may be convicted of an attempt to commit such offense “if such attempt is an offense.” The question thus becomes: If an attempt to utter a forged instrument is not a crime separate from uttering a forged instrument, is it “an offense” within the meaning of § 919.16? We hold that the fact that an attempt to utter a forged instrument is also the uttering of a forged instrument does not mean that an attempt to utter a forged instrument is not an offense. It would seem illogical to hold that because an attempt is as large as the crime, it is not a crime. It is true that the attempt *747is not a separate crime; but it is an offense. We presume that the trial judge was fully aware of the law that an attempt to utter a forged instrument may be punished as the uttering of a forged instrument. It follows that he inserted the word “attempt” to show that the uttering was not complete and as a predicate for the less than maximum sentence.
No harmful error has been shown. The judgment and sentence are affirmed.
Affirmed.
CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Sykes, 434 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1983)…812.-014, Florida Statutes (1977), the theft statute. A conviction of attempted theft is a conviction, and not an acquittal, of the crime itself. I would recede from Pagano v. State, 387 So. 2d 349 (Fla.1980), adopt the holding of Edwards v. State, 223 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969), apply McIntyre v. State, 380 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), to the facts of this case, and endorse the sound reasoning of Judge Larry Smith in his opinion in this cause. I would unequivocally answer “No” to the certified quest…
-
King v. State, 339 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1976)…PER CURIAM. We have granted certiorari without oral argument in this case because of conflict between the opinion of the District Court of Appeal, First District, reported at 317 So. 2d 852, and Edwards v. State, 223 So. 2d 746 (Fla.3d DCA 1969). We have jurisdiction under Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. After examining the briefs submitted by the parties to this cause, we conclude that there is a conflict in decision. Upon review of the authorities and r…1 / 2
-
King v. State, 317 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…izes that in order for the trial judge to instruct the jury on the attempt, he must establish that attempted uttering is an offense cognizable under Florida law. In support of this proposition, appellant relies on Edwards v. State, Fla.App.3rd 1969, 223 So. 2d 746. For reasons expressed below, we refuse to follow the reasoning of the Third District as revealed in the Edwards case. As recognized by the Third District in its decision, “ * * * an uttering is proved as fully by an attempt to negotiate a forged in…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hamilton Harrell v. State, 79 Fla. 220 (Fla. 1920)
- Hazen v. Mayo, 90 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 1956)