State v. Love

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Love

415 So. 2d 113, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20383

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Love. Read the opinion of the Court — 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19422 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 15, 1982·No. No. 82-331·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellee having confessed error in the trial court’s granting of his sworn motion to dismiss, and such error clearly appearing, the order of dismissal is reversed. The question of whether the defendant knew that he was uttering a forged check, thus violating Section 831.02, Florida Statutes (1981), is a question of fact which cannot be resolved by a motion to dismiss pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4). See State v. Alford, 395 So.2d 201 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). The same is true as to whether the defendant had the requisite intent to injure or defraud any person. See State v. Alexander, 406 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellee having confessed error in the trial court’s granting of his sworn motion to dismiss, and such error clearly appearing, the order of dismissal is reversed. The question of whether the defendant knew that he was uttering a forged check, thus violating Section 831.02, Florida Statutes (1981), is a question of fact which cannot be resolved by a motion to dismiss pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4). See State v. Alford, 395 So.2d 201 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). The same is true as to whether the defendant had the requisite intent to injure or defraud any person. See State v. Alexander, 406 So.2d 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

Reversed and remanded.

State v. Love, 415 So. 2d 113, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20383 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

415 So. 2d 113 (State v. Love) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related