CHESTER T. WELDON, 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.
Chester Weldon appealed his conviction for uttering a worthless check, which the trial court reduced to a misdemeanor and resolved with probation rather than adjudication of guilt. The appellate court affirmed the conviction but reduced the probation term to comply with statutory maximum limits.
The court affirmed the conviction on all points but amended the sentence. Evidence was legally sufficient to prove intent; the statutory prima facie evidence provision is constitutional; and the two and one-half year probation term exceeded the statutory maximum and was therefore reduced to two years and sixty days.
[1] A motion for judgment of acquittal admits all facts in evidence and every conclusion favorable to the State fairly and reasonably inferable therefrom.
[2] The intent to defraud in uttering a worthless check may be determined from the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the check.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“when a defendant moves for a directed verdict of acquittal, he admits all facts in evidence and every conclusion favorable to the State fairly and reasonably inferable therefrom”
Establishes the standard of review for sufficiency of evidence claims and why intent to defraud could be inferred from the circumstances of check issuance.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWeldon was tried before the court without a jury on a charge of uttering a worthless check. The trial court reduced the charge from felony to misdemea…
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 Worthless Check cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant was tried upon an information charging him with the felony of uttering a worthless check. After trial before the court without jury, the court reduced the charge to a misdemeanor and found the appellant guilty. The court withheld the entry of adjudication of guilt and placed the defendant on probation for a period of two and one half years.
On this appeal, the defendant has presented three points for our review. The first urges that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence was legally insufficient to prove intent.
In light of the record, we find that this point does not establish error. It should be remembered that when a defendant moves for a directed verdict of acquittal, he admits all facts in evidence and every conclusion favorable to the State fairly and reasonably, inferable therefronj. See Holland v. State, 129 Fla. 363, 176 So. 169 (1937); Devlin v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 82. Whether the defendant issued the check involved herein with knowledge that there were insufficient funds and with the requisite intent to defraud may be determined from the circumstances.
Appellant’s second point urges error upon the ground of the alleged unconstitutionality of Fla.Stat. § 832.05(6), F.S. A., which provides that “ . . . the drawing, making, uttering or delivering .of a check, draft or written order, payment of which is refused by the drawee, shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds in or credit with such drawee”.
We note that this issue was not raised or argued in the trial court.
Nevertheless, we have examined appellant’s contention in the light of the argument advanced in his brief and find that the argument is not sufficient as a basis upon which to declare the section invalid. See Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837, 93 S.Ct. 2357, 37 L.Ed.2d 380 (1973); Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398, 90 S.Ct. 642, 24 L.Ed.2d 610 (1970).
Appellant’s third point urges that the sentence is excessive because the court found the appellant guilty of a misdemean-or in the second degree for which the maximum sentence is sixty days in prison. Fla.Stat. § 948.04, F.S.A., provides that a trial court may place a defendant on probation for two years beyond the maximum term provided for the offense by statute; therefore, two years plus sixty days is the , maximum period for probation on this offense. Since this argument concerning the excessiveness of the sentence is mérito-rious, the sentence shall be amended by reducing the term of probation to two years and sixty days.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed and the sentence is amended as above set out.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cosme Rodriguez v. State, 379 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…merit. A motion for judgment of acquittal in a criminal case on the grounds of insufficient evidence to support the conviction admits all facts in evidence and every reasonable conclusion inferable therefrom favorable to the State. Weldon v. State, 287 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Spinkellink v. State, 313 So. 2d 666 (Fla.1975); Leath v. State, 333 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). In that posture, the facts in the instant case reveal the following: On Sunday evening, July 3,1977, the deceased and his girl…
-
Lou Ann Andreasen v. State, 439 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…nal prosecution, moving for a directed verdict of acquittal, admits facts in evidence adduced and every conclusion favorable to the state fairly and reasonably in-ferable therefrom. Victor v. State, 141 Fla. 508, 193 So. 762 (1939); Weldon v. State, 287 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), appeal dismissed, 298 So. 2d 419 (Fla.1974); Dancy v. State, 284 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Dixon v. State, 180 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965), cert. dismissed, 188 So. 2d 318 (Fla.), appeal dismissed, 188 So. 2d 810 (Fla.1966…
-
Leath v. State, 333 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…ect of that evidence. It is axiomatic that a motion for judgment of acquittal made pursuant to RCrP 3.380 admits all facts in evidence and every reasonable conclusion inferable therefrom. Brown v. State, 294 So. 2d 128 (3 DCA 1974); Weldon v. State, 287 So. 2d 133 (3 DCA 1974); Lynch v. State, 293 So. 2d 44 (Fla.1974); Dancy v. State, 284 So. 2d 452 (3 DCA 1973); and Victor v. State, 141 Fla. 508, 193 So. 762 (1940). Neither can we agree with appellant’s other contention that the evidence is insufficient to…
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
- Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398 (U.S. 1970)
- Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1973)
- Holland v. State, 129 Fla. 363 (Fla. 1937)
- Devlin v. State, 175 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)