Cor v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cor v. State

506 So. 2d 12, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 812, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7268

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 18, 1987

DocketNo. 85-1094

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 506 So. 2d 12 (Cor 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

Cor v. State, 506 So. 2d 12, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 812, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7268 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions under Counts I and II but reverse as to Count III because we believe the evidence was insufficient to sustain that conviction. Cf Adams v. State, 443 So.2d 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Specifically, we find a lack of evidence of specific intent to deprive the bank of its funds at the time the bank loan was made. While it seems apparent that the appellant and his codefendant made some misrepresentations to the bank concerning the condition of the collateral, and in doing so may have committed some offense, we do not believe this converted the transaction from a loan to a larceny.

Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part and remand with directions that appellant’s conviction and sentence in Count III be vacated.

ANSTEAD, LETTS and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions under Counts I and II but reverse as to Count III because we believe the evidence was insufficient to sustain that conviction. Cf Adams v. State, 443 So.2d 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Specifically, we find a lack of evidence of specific intent to deprive the bank of its funds at the time the bank loan was made. While it seems apparent that the appellant and his codefendant made some misrepresentations to the bank concerning the condition of the collateral, and in doing so may have committed some offense, we do not believe this converted the transaction from a loan to a larceny.

Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part and remand with directions that appellant’s conviction and sentence in Count III be vacated.

ANSTEAD, LETTS and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

506 So. 2d 12, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 812, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cor-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack