Barge v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Barge v. State

747 So. 2d 481, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 92, 2000 WL 5926

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 7, 2000

DocketNo. 1D99-1024

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 747 So. 2d 481 (Barge v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barge v. State, 747 So. 2d 481, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 92, 2000 WL 5926 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Charles Edward Barge, was found guilty by a jury of nine counts of forgery, nine counts of uttering forgeries, and one count of grand theft. Barge appeals the convictions, claiming, among other issues, that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he forged the checks, and that he therefore could not be convicted of forgery, uttering forgeries and grand theft. Our review of the record indicates that the evidence presented by the State was sufficient to prove that the nine checks were forged, and that Barge uttered them, knowing that they were forged. While the evidence was sufficient to prove that appellant uttered the nine forged checks and committed grand theft, the evidence was insufficient to prove that appellant forged any of the nine checks. See Clark v. State, 737 So.2d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). We therefore reverse the forgery convictions, but affirm in all other respects.

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.

JOANOS, MINER and DAVIS, JJ., CONCUR.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Charles Edward Barge, was found guilty by a jury of nine counts of forgery, nine counts of uttering forgeries, and one count of grand theft. Barge appeals the convictions, claiming, among other issues, that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he forged the checks, and that he therefore could not be convicted of forgery, uttering forgeries and grand theft. Our review of the record indicates that the evidence presented by the State was sufficient to prove that the nine checks were forged, and that Barge uttered them, knowing that they were forged. While the evidence was sufficient to prove that appellant uttered the nine forged checks and committed grand theft, the evidence was insufficient to prove that appellant forged any of the nine checks. See Clark v. State, 737 So.2d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). We therefore reverse the forgery convictions, but affirm in all other respects.

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.

JOANOS, MINER and DAVIS, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

747 So. 2d 481, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 92, 2000 WL 5926, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barge-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack