CLAYTON COUNCIL DAVIS, 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.
Clayton Davis was convicted of forgery for endorsing a check drawn on another person's account. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence that Davis signed his name as a second endorsement with intent to defraud.
The appellate court held that the trial court properly denied the motion for judgment of acquittal because the State presented sufficient evidence for a jury to find that Davis signed his name as an endorsement to a check drawn on another person's account with intent to defraud.
[1] Forgery requires the making of a writing that falsely purports to be the writing of another, with an intent to defraud.
[2] The endorsement of a check can constitute forgery.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The crime of forgery requires the making of a writing, which falsely purports to be the writing of another, with an intent to defraud.”
Establishes the legal standard for forgery that the court applied in evaluating whether sufficient evidence supported the jury verdict.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA check was drawn on a Georgia bank in the name of Tally Youmans payable to E. P. Stevenson. The check contained two endorsements on its back: one by …
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 Fictitious Payee cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant contends on this appeal that the lower court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on a forgery charge. We disagree and affirm his conviction.
The crime of forgery requires the making of a writing, which falsely purports to be the writing of another, with an intent to defraud. Davis v. State, 111 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959); Walters v. State, 245 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). Endorsement of a check may also be the subject of forgery, and the offense may exist even though the name used is an assumed or fictitious name when it is shown that the assumed or fictitious name was used with intent to defraud. Green v. State, 76 So. 2d 645 (Fla.1954).
The check allegedly forged by appellant here was drawn on a Georgia bank and appeared on its face to have been written by a Tally Youmans to an E. P. Stevenson. Two endorsements appeared on the back of the check, one signed E. P. Stevenson and one signed Clayton Davis. The apparent maker of the check, Tally Youmans, testified that he had an account at that bank but had not written the check and did not know an E. P. Stevenson. He further testified that a checkbook of his had been stolen after he loaned a car containing the checkbook to a friend named Brenda Taylor. Brenda Taylor testified and linked appellant to the check in two ways: first she stated that he had used Tally Youmans’ car during the time she had borrowed it; and second, she stated that appellant had told her before this incident that he had come into possession of certain identification cards of the apparent payee of the check, Evelyn Stevenson, and that if she cooperated with him, they could “make some money.” Finally, a State handwriting expert testified conclusively that appellant had written the name Clayton Davis as a second endorsement on the check.
On this record, we believe the State presented sufficient evidence to go to the jury on whether appellant signed the name Clayton Davis as an endorsement to a check drawn on another person’s account with the intent to defraud that person.
AFFIRMED.
MILLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN and MELVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 426 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…ion of the appellant. As stated, all of this evidence was obtained independently of the questionable method used to retrieve the bank teller’s memory relating to the identification of appellant as the person who passed the check. Cf. Davis v. State, 364 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 373 So. 2d 457 (Fla.1979). We are unable to say, after considering the record as a whole, that any of the allegedly prejudicial evidence, if excluded, might have affected the jury’s verdict as to the forgery charg…
-
H. L. A. v. State, 395 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…e name of the payee on the reverse side of the check, it then would have become a false or forged instrument, and the evidence would have been sufficient to adjudicate appellant a delinquent child for the offense of uttering. Compare Davis v. State, 364 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), which approved a conviction for forgery upon facts showing that the defendant had possession of a stolen check which had not been signed by its purported maker, and that defendant and his accomplice had entered into an agreement…
-
Claxton Council Davis v. McALLISTER, 631 F.2d 1256 (5th Cir. 1980)…ion for a writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. Claxton Council Davis was convicted by a jury of forgery under Fla.Stat.Ann. § 831.-01 (1976). The First District Court of Appeals of Florida affirmed Davis’ conviction. Davis v. State, 364 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 1st Dist. Ct.App.1978), cert. denied, 373 So. 2d 457 (Fla.1979). Davis’ petition for writ of habe-as corpus was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida on the sole ground that the evidence adduced at the…
Authorities Cited
- Green v. State, 76 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 1954)
- Davis v. State, 111 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Eldo Healdraw Walters v. State, 245 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)