State v. Rapp

Supreme Court of Florida

State v. Rapp

281 So. 2d 193, 1973 Fla. LEXIS 4973

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJuly 31, 1973

DocketNo. 43606

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 281 So. 2d 193 (State v. Rapp) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Rapp, 281 So. 2d 193, 1973 Fla. LEXIS 4973 (Fla. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari reflected probable jurisdiction in this Court to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, reported at 274 So.2d 18, based upon conflict between that decision and Green v. State, 76 So.2d 645 (Fla.1954). We issued the writ and have heard oral argument of the parties. After argument and upon further consideration of the matter, we have determined that the writ was improvidently issued.

The decisions are distinguishable in that the Green holding relied upon evidence tending to show that the defendant used assumed names intending that the signatures would be taken as the genuine signatures of other people. In the case sub judice, the District Court found that there was no evidence introduced by the State to show that respondent intended the signature of his assumed name to be taken as the genuine signature of another person. We have determined that the distinguishing evidentiary bases for these decisions dictate that this Court not entertain jurisdiction based upon conflict between them. Therefore, the writ is hereby discharged and the petition for writ of certiorari is dismissed.

It is so ordered.

CARLTON, C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur. ROBERTS, J., dissents.

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

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari reflected probable jurisdiction in this Court to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, reported at 274 So.2d 18, based upon conflict between that decision and Green v. State, 76 So.2d 645 (Fla.1954). We issued the writ and have heard oral argument of the parties. After argument and upon further consideration of the matter, we have determined that the writ was improvidently issued.

The decisions are distinguishable in that the Green holding relied upon evidence tending to show that the defendant used assumed names intending that the signatures would be taken as the genuine signatures of other people. In the case sub judice, the District Court found that there was no evidence introduced by the State to show that respondent intended the signature of his assumed name to be taken as the genuine signature of another person. We have determined that the distinguishing evidentiary bases for these decisions dictate that this Court not entertain jurisdiction based upon conflict between them. Therefore, the writ is hereby discharged and the petition for writ of certiorari is dismissed.

It is so ordered.

CARLTON, C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur. ROBERTS, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 So. 2d 193, 1973 Fla. LEXIS 4973, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rapp-fla-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack