Wells v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wells v. State

413 So. 2d 165, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19879

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 29, 1982

DocketNo. AH-122

StatusPublished

This text of 413 So. 2d 165 (Wells 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

Wells v. State, 413 So. 2d 165, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19879 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Chief Judge.

Wells appeals from his conviction of theft, section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1980 Supp.), entered on a plea of nolo contendere reserving the right to appeal the court’s denial of Wells’ pre-trial motion to dismiss on the ground there were no material disputed facts and the undisputed facts did not establish a prima facie case. Fla.R. Cr.P. 3.190(c)(4). Wells’ motion set up facts tending to support his discharge on the theory that the money he received from the victim, which Wells kept, was voluntarily given him in exchange for an unfulfilled promise to perform certain services. Cf. Martin v. State, 379 So.2d 179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Even if the promise was false when made, Martin held, that would not be a false representation of existing facts supporting a conviction for larceny by false representations. But as the trial court in this case held, Wells’ motion did not show facts negating the theory, buttressed by the State’s return showing Wells was the victim’s employee, that the money given and possessed by Wells remained his employer’s until, subsequently, Wells embezzled or converted it to his own use. Wells’ motion to dismiss was properly denied.

AFFIRMED.

McCORD and BOOTH, JJ., concur.

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

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Chief Judge.

Wells appeals from his conviction of theft, section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1980 Supp.), entered on a plea of nolo contendere reserving the right to appeal the court’s denial of Wells’ pre-trial motion to dismiss on the ground there were no material disputed facts and the undisputed facts did not establish a prima facie case. Fla.R. Cr.P. 3.190(c)(4). Wells’ motion set up facts tending to support his discharge on the theory that the money he received from the victim, which Wells kept, was voluntarily given him in exchange for an unfulfilled promise to perform certain services. Cf. Martin v. State, 379 So.2d 179 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Even if the promise was false when made, Martin held, that would not be a false representation of existing facts supporting a conviction for larceny by false representations. But as the trial court in this case held, Wells’ motion did not show facts negating the theory, buttressed by the State’s return showing Wells was the victim’s employee, that the money given and possessed by Wells remained his employer’s until, subsequently, Wells embezzled or converted it to his own use. Wells’ motion to dismiss was properly denied.

AFFIRMED.

McCORD and BOOTH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

413 So. 2d 165, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-v-state-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack