Willis v. State

857 So. 2d 297, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 14387, 2003 WL 22190021
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Willis v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 840 So. 2d 1135
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 24, 2003·No. No. 3D03-166·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Kyle Willis appeals his conviction for forgery and uttering a forged instrument. We affirm.

Defendant-appellant was employed by a business in Key West. The business owner had left a check for another employee to pick up. The check was signed and filled out for $290 which the owner owed the employee, but the payee line was left blank.

The defendant stole the check, filled in his name on the payee line, and cashed the check at a local liquor store. He was convicted of theft, forgery, and uttering a forged instrument. He does not challenge the conviction for theft.

On this appeal the defendant contends that his conduct does not qualify as forgery under section 831.01, Florida Statutes (2001), which provides in relevant part that “[w]hoever falsely makes, alters, forges or counterfeits .... an order ... for money ... with intent to injure or defraud any person, shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree.... ”

We conclude that the defendant’s conduct qualifies as the crime of forgery. He falsely made or altered the check by inserting his name as payee, with the intent to obtain $290 to which he was not entitled. See Rushing v. State, 684 So.2d 856 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Ausburn v. State, 216 So.2d 84 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968).

Affirmed.

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

Willis v. State, 857 So. 2d 297, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 14387, 2003 WL 22190021 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

857 So. 2d 297 (Willis v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rushing v. State
684 So. 2d 856 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Ausburn v. State
216 So. 2d 84 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1968)