JOSEPH G. BARRY, 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 court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions for grand larceny and forgery, and any sentencing error was harmless.
Barry was convicted of grand larceny and forgery. He appealed, contesting the sufficiency of the evidence and asserting other errors.…
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 Forgery cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
Barry appeals from judgments and concurrent sentences of commitment on charges of grand larceny and forgery. He contests the sufficiency of the evidence on both counts and asserts other errors.
Upon our initial consideration of the charge that Barry forged the signature of Mary Burtt Foster as an endorsement on a check payable to her, we erroneously conceived that the endorsement was written as “Mary Burtt Foster (JGB)” and that Barry intended thereby to reveal his authorship of the handwriting. In fact, as clearly appears by the State’s petition for rehearing, the evidence and the permissible inferences from the evidence were in conflict at the trial. Our initial disposition to reverse the forgery conviction was therefore in error and the opinion expressing that reversal is withdrawn. The evidence was likewise sufficient to sustain Barry’s conviction of grand larceny.
At the sentencing, the court expressed the view that Barry’s counsel was entitled to present evidence in bar of the sentence, but not evidence in mitigation. Counsel persisted, however, until he managed to present to a reluctant audience the substance of the evidence. Barry’s counsel was entitled as of right to a reasonable opportunity to make a submission, by testimony or otherwise, on any matter “relevant to the sentence.” Rule 3.720(b), R.Cr.P. Neering v. State, 164 So. 2d 29 (Fla.App. 1st, 1964), cert. den. 377 U.S. 980, 84 S.Ct. 1880, 12 L.Ed.2d 748 (1964), reh. den. 379 U.S. 871, 85 S.Ct. 16, 13 L.Ed.2d 78 (1964). However, because the trial court heard and evidently considered the evidence which Barry’s counsel presented and there is no indication that any evidence omitted was of import greater than that which was presented, any error was harmless. Sec. 924.33, F.S.1975.
The judgments and sentences are AFFIRMED.
RAWLS, Acting C. J., and McCORD, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Green v. State, 84 So. 3d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…court’s comments regarding lack of remorse were merely a recognition that there was no basis to grant defendant's request for a reduced sentence). . See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.720(b); Ventura v. State, 741 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Barry v. State, 330 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).…
-
Ryan v. State, 78 So. 3d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…hoose between maintaining his innocence after trial (and thus preserving, as a practical matter, his appellate rights) and a defendant's right to allocution before sentencing. See Ventura v. State, 741 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Barry v. State, 330 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.720(b). A defendant who maintains his innocence and wishes to appeal the judgment of conviction might well decide to forego his right to allocution rather than risk the possibility of an increased sentence shou…1 / 2
-
Valdimir Morrobel v. State (Fla. 6th DCA 2026)…red statement but did not allow the defendant to read the full statement. 141 So. 3d at 1255. The First District affirmed, however, as harmless error, where a court reluctantly heard some evidence but declined to hear other evidence. Barry v. State, 330 So. 2d 512, 513 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). But we need not settle that dispute in this case because the evidence that the defendant attempted to introduce in this case was not within the scope of rule 3.720(b). Appellant's testimony was not relevant to his sentence.…
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
- R.R. Yardmasters of Am., AFL-CIO v. St. Louis, 377 U.S. 980 (U.S. 1964)
- Young v. United States, 377 U.S. 980 (U.S. 1964)
- Vann v. Baggett, 379 U.S. 871 (U.S. 1964)
- Neering v. State, 164 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)