Salzman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Salzman v. State

591 So. 2d 1107, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5, 1992 WL 568

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 3, 1992

DocketNo. 91-00034

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 591 So. 2d 1107 (Salzman 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

Salzman v. State, 591 So. 2d 1107, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5, 1992 WL 568 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge.

In this appeal we are confronted by the following question which has been answered differently by two district courts of appeal: Can a defendant who steals blank checks, forges the signature required, and presents them for payment, be convicted of dealing in stolen property, where he is also convicted of uttering a forged instrument based on the same checks? Sections 812.-019 and 831.02, Fla.Stat. (1989). Dixon v. State, 541 So.2d 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), has answered the question in the affirmative. State v. Camp, 579 So.2d 763 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), jurisdiction accepted, 587 So.2d 1329 (Fla.1991), has replied in the negative. We answer the question in the affirmative, thus aligning ourselves with the First District in Dixon, and adopt the analysis set forth in the majority opinion there. In so doing we are in conflict with Camp which is presently pending review in the Supreme Court of Florida.

We affirm the appellant’s convictions and sentences.

CAMPBELL and HALL, JJ., concur.

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

DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge.

In this appeal we are confronted by the following question which has been answered differently by two district courts of appeal: Can a defendant who steals blank checks, forges the signature required, and presents them for payment, be convicted of dealing in stolen property, where he is also convicted of uttering a forged instrument based on the same checks? Sections 812.-019 and 831.02, Fla.Stat. (1989). Dixon v. State, 541 So.2d 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), has answered the question in the affirmative. State v. Camp, 579 So.2d 763 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), jurisdiction accepted, 587 So.2d 1329 (Fla.1991), has replied in the negative. We answer the question in the affirmative, thus aligning ourselves with the First District in Dixon, and adopt the analysis set forth in the majority opinion there. In so doing we are in conflict with Camp which is presently pending review in the Supreme Court of Florida.

We affirm the appellant’s convictions and sentences.

CAMPBELL and HALL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

591 So. 2d 1107, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 5, 1992 WL 568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salzman-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack