Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...on of these questions. Petitioner Lula M. Villery is presently a prisoner in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections. She had pleaded guilty to five counts of knowingly issuing worthless checks in excess of fifty dollars in violation of section 832.05, Florida Statutes....

...he time of the alleged offense. See F.S. 39.01. Explanation of amendments: The instruction begins on page 163 of the manual. The changes are based on 1990 amendments to F.S. 827.04. [Page A-61] *1239 WORTHLESS CHECK — OBTAINING PROPERTY (Amended) F.S. 832.05(4) Note to This statute applies to a variety of orders to pay money Judge and "commercial paper," and a variety of types of drawees and transactions....

...t, by itself, give (payee) reason to believe that (defendant) had insufficient funds to ensure payment of this check. Explanation of amendment: This instruction is on pages 171-172 of manual. The underlined sentence is based on a 1988 amendment to F.S. 832.05(4)(a)....

...ept when farm or grove products uttering is — 832.04 charged — 832.04 under $50 Stopping payment with intent None Attempt, except when to defraud — 832.041 uttering is charged; 832.04 if farm or grove product; 832.041 under $50 Worthless check — 832.05(2) (second degree misdemeanor) Worthless checks — 832.05(2) None Attempt, except when uttering is charged Obtaining property by Worthless check Attempt, except when worthless — 832.05(2) uttering is charged checks — 832.05(4) (second degree misdemeanor) Perjury not in official None None proceeding — 837.012 Perjury if official proceeding None None — 837.02 Perjury by contradictory None None statements — 837.021 False reports to law None None enforcement autho...

...3d DCA 1983) is persuasive authority for the proposition that in enacting § 836.05 the Florida Legislature did not intend to create a private civil cause of action. To briefly summarize, in Rankin, Judge Pearson reasoned that there was no private right of action implied under the criminal bad check provisions of § 832.05, Florida Statutes, as had the Legislature intended to create a private right of action *977 under the statute it would have expressly provided for one, as it did under the criminal theft statute § 812.035, Florida Statutes....

...object, and without a finding that the indigent appellants had the ability to pay the additional costs. We reverse the imposition of court costs and remand. Lawton pled guilty to obtaining property in return for a worthless check in contravention of Section 832.05(4), Florida Statutes....

...On September 16, 1981, an information was filed by the Defendant, Dawn Grant Kahre, Assistant State Attorney, against the Debtor based upon facts furnished by Belk Lindsey. The information charged the Debtor with obtaining property by issuing a worthless check in violation of Fla.Stat. § 832.05....

...Both checks were returned by the bank, marked "insufficient funds". Defendant George was identified by the respective sales ladies as the person who passed the checks. The *175 foregoing is a fair synopsis of the evidence upon which the jury convicted. F.S. Sec. 832.05(3,) F.S.A., provides as follows: "(3) Obtaining property in return for worthless checks, etc.; penalty (a) It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to obtain any services, goods, wares or other things of value by means of a che...

...ve that the drawer did not have on deposit or to his credit with the drawee sufficient funds to insure payment thereof." Defendant George contended before the Trial Court, and reiterates here, that the proviso contained in the latter portion of Sec. 832.05(3) which says that the "drawer" of a check cannot be prosecuted if, at the time the check is given, the "payee" knows or has reason to believe that the check is worthless, immunizes him from prosecution....

...tive bent of mind. But it would strain an intelligent credulity to the breaking point, and would make a mockery of our criminal laws. The established canons of statutory construction are sufficiently broad and flexible to discard such argument. Sec. 832.05(3) shows an intention by the legislature to protect "any person, firm or corporation" selling or dispensing "any services, goods, wares or other things of value". In fact, Sec. 832.05(1) sets forth in plain terms that the "purpose" of the entire Section 832.05 "is to remedy the evil of giving checks * * * on a bank without first providing funds in * * * the depository on which the same are * * * drawn to pay * * * the same, which tends to create the circulation of worthless checks * * * and...

...And the manifest intent of the legislature will prevail over any literal import of words used by it; and no literal interpretation leading to an unreasonable conclusion or a purpose not intended by the law should be given. Worden v. Hunt, Fla.App. 1962, 147 So.2d 548. Applying the foregoing principles to Sec. 832.05(3), the conclusion is manifest that the word "payee" must be given a broad and liberal construction to include not only the person to whom the check is nominally payable but to any person to whom it is knowingly given or passed, especially if the latter is the one parting with the property for which the check was drawn. Furthermore, if George's contention of "strict construction" be carried to its ultimate ad absurdium, he would be directly caught in his own legal vice by the preceding Sec. 832.05(2), which makes it a misdemeanor to simply "pass" a worthless check, but also provides that if the check is for $50.00 or more "and the payee * * * receives something of value therefor ", the offense is a felony punishable up to five years in the State Prison. It is obvious from a literal reading of the quoted portion that George would be directly amenable to Sec. 832.05(2) because he was the "payee" and he received "something of value"....

...er or the person who passes the check in exchange for that "something of value". Suffice to say that, in any event, George is amenable to prosecution for passing the Grant and Henry checks. If a liberal construction is adopted, he is subject to Sec. 832.05(3). If a strict construction is adopted, he is subject to Sec. 832.05 (2). And the statutory penalties are identical. We prefer to rest affirmance upon a liberal and practical construction of Sec. 832.05(3)....

...It is further alleged that Gonzalez was involved in Gateway's scheme to use credit cards to fraudulently purchase airline tickets without the card-owner's consent. Tourismart seeks to hold Gonzalez individually liable for conversion and for violation of section 832.05, Florida Statutes (1983) in count V, and for fraud in count VI. Gonzalez contends that Tourismart cannot maintain a civil action under section 832.05....

...Central Bank & Trust Co., 250 So.2d 895 (Fla. 1971); Perry v. Cosgrove, 464 So.2d 664 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Tourismart's claim for treble damages, however, must fail. The claim for treble damages is made in the complaint based upon Gonzalez' alleged violation of section 832.05, Florida Statutes (1983)....

...Finding that the complaint states a valid cause of action for conversion and fraud, we hold that the trial court erred in dismissing Tourismart's complaint. Accordingly, we reverse, but affirm with respect to the trial court's dismissal of Tourismart's claim for treble damages. NOTES [1] Section 832.05 makes the issuing of worthless checks subject to criminal penalties but makes no provision, within the statute, for civil recovery....

...Light presented no evidence on any of the three elements necessary to establish a misuse of process. To the contrary, the evidence adduced at the civil trial demonstrated that Thomson made proper use of the criminal process to "remedy the evil of giving [worthless] checks... ." § 832.05, Fla....

...1968), except as to Counts II and IV, which charge illegal conduct involving moral turpitude. The record reveals that respondent did in fact issue four worthless checks with knowledge that there were insufficient funds on deposit with the bank to pay the checks on presentation. Such conduct is proscribed under Section 832.05(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1975)....

...nts on cross-examination. If he wanted more, he should have made the prosecuting witness his own. The second question is whether or not the evidence of guilt under the statute was such that the court should have directed a verdict for the defendant. Section 832.05(2), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., is as follows: "It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to draw, make, utter, issue or deliver to another any check, draft, or other written order on any bank or depository for the payment...

...ssuance of the check in question, that the prosecuting witness deposited it in his bank account and that it was returned marked "insufficient funds." It was offered in evidence. This was sufficient to prove the state's case under the quoted statute. Section 832.05(5), Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...o meet and pay the same on presentation." It is last contended by appellant that the "meat" of the case is the distinction between the utterance of a civilly and a criminally worthless check. If there is a difference appellant does not point it out. Section 832.05(5), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., appears to answer this contention....

...sible for a jury properly instructed to find all elements established beyond a reasonable doubt. Respondents argue that this Court's decision in Dirk v. State, 305 So.2d 187 (Fla. 1974), in which the Court upheld a statutory presumption contained in Section 832.05(6), provides an analogous situation....

...[5] In Dirk this Court referred to the recent United States Supreme Court cases ( Barnes, Turner, and Leary ) and stated that "they have been carefully examined and we find that they do not vitiate our prior decisions upholding the constitutionality of Section 832.05, Florida Statutes." 305 So.2d at 188....

...Once the jurisdiction of the court has been challenged by raising the statute of limitations as a defense the state has the burden of establishing that the prosecution is not barred. On January 5, 1984 defendant was charged with uttering a worthless check on May 25, 1983, in violation of section 832.05(4)(a) of the Florida Statutes (1983), a third degree felony....

...Defendant says that in the case sub judice the prosecution was for the issuance of the worthless check in the amount of $850; that this check was deposited with the bank; and that he did not receive "any services, goods, wares or other things of value" by means of the deposited check. See Fla. Stat. § 832.05(3) (a), F.S.A....

...iately thereafter writing another check for $250 and cashing it. In other words, the statute does not require that there be a simultaneous transaction whereby the worthless check is presented and the defendant receives something of value. Fla. Stat. § 832.05, F.S.A., should be construed and applied, so as to fairly and liberally accomplish the beneficial purpose for which it was adopted....

...orthless check to cover another night of lodging. He was also convicted and sentenced on two first degree misdemeanor counts of obtaining property or services in return for the two worthless checks made payable to the hotel, in violation of sections 832.05(4)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (1989)....

...this court. See Barber v. State, 564 So.2d 1169, 1170-71 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 576 So.2d 284 (Fla. 1990). Finally, we note that two scrivener's errors appear in the judgment. Counts three and four, charging the worthless check offenses under section 832.05, are identified as second degree misdemeanors rather than first degree misdemeanors, and the "offense statute number(s)" for those counts is identified as section 832.05(2)(b) rather than section 832.05(4)(c)....

...cond count. An appeal has been taken by the defendant from the judgment and sentence. Several assignments of error have been urged but it is not necessary to discuss all of them. These questions are stated as follows: Question I. Is Florida Statute, § 832.05 unconstitutional because it deprives the defendant of his constitutional right to meet the witnesses against him face to face? Question II. Is Florida Statute, § 832.05 unconstitutional for the reason that it provides for imprisonment for debt without fraud and contrary to Section 16 of the Florida Declaration of Rights? Question III....

...6". The check and paper were introduced in evidence. The defendant contends that he was deprived of the right to cross-examine the bank official who made the notation on the paper attached to the check. It is argued by counsel for the defendant that Section 832.05(5) providing that: In all prosecutions under this section, the introduction in evidence of any unpaid and dishonored check, draft or other written order, having the drawee's refusal to pay stamped or written thereon, or attached theret...

...This contention has been adversely answered in the case of Shargaa v. State, 84 So.2d 42, and see the citation thereunder. In the case now before us the evidence was sufficient to prove the corpus delicti, and also, a prima facie case under the second count of the information as required by Section 832.05(5), Florida Statutes of 1955, F.S.A. Question II. Appellant contends that Section 832.05 Florida Statutes of 1955, F.S.A....

...which provides that `no person shall be imprisoned for debt, except in cases of fraud.'" In the case of State v. Yarboro, 194 N.C. 498, 140 S.E. 216, 218, the court dealt with the validity of a statute substantially the same as the Florida Statute, § 832.05, F.S.A....

...Sound Investment of Clearwater, Inc., a corporation of which Green was an officer and director. Appellant sued Green for the amount of the worthless checks on the ground that the payee of a worthless corporate check has an implied civil remedy under section 832.05, Florida Statutes (1981), which imposes criminal sanctions for drawing, uttering, issuing, or delivering a check or draft known by the maker to be drawn on insufficient funds....

...iminal statute," leaves open the possibility that such a cause of action exists if properly pleaded. In my view, there is no such possibility, and I think it should be foreclosed here and now. The only way which one can conclude that the language of Section 832.05 creates a private civil cause against the maker of a worthless check is by fashioning a per se rule of construction that implicit in every penal statute is a concomitant civil remedy....

...pressly declared a private cause of action, we must determine whether the statute, although penal in nature, plainly imposes a duty for the benefit of an especial class of individuals. Rosenberg v. Ryder Leasing, Inc., 168 So.2d at 680. A reading of Section 832.05 convinces me that the Legislature did not intend to confer on a payee a private right of action against the writer of a worthless check....

...§ 11-7-12 (1972), as it has seen fit to do in respect to other crimes, see, e.g., § 812.035, Fla. Stat. (1981) (expressly providing civil treble damage action to one injured by reason of theft made criminal by Section 812.012). Second, the express purpose of Section 832.05 contains no language which in the slightest way suggests a legislative intent that the statute was enacted for the protection of payees: "(1) PURPOSE....

...1965) (repeal by implication is not favored); Ellis v. City of Winter Haven, 60 So.2d 620 (Fla. 1952) (if possible, two statutes must be construed as to preserve force of both). Accordingly, I would hold that the payee of a worthless check does not have a civil remedy under Section 832.05....

...Home was arrested by Tampa police and spent a day in a Hillsborough County jail before a North Carolina district attorney recalled the arrest warrant. Apparently, North Carolina law, like Florida law, does not permit criminal charges on postdated checks. See, e.g., § 832.05, Fla....

...NOTES [1] The motion does not adequately specify the statute numbers under which Bell was charged, nor does the record before us contain the charging instrument. With respect to the worthless check charge, we are assuming that the prosecution was brought pursuant to § 832.05(4), Fla....

...Freeland, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. BLUE, Judge. Charles DeGeso appeals his convictions for two counts of trafficking in cocaine in violation of section 893.135, Florida Statutes (1995); passing a worthless check in violation of section 832.05(2), Florida Statutes (1995); and failure to appear in violation of section 843.15, Florida Statutes (1995)....

...State, 681 So.2d 1136 (Fla.1996), applies to defendant's post-conviction proceedings, we reverse the denial of defendant's motion. BACKGROUND FACTS Defendant originally pled nolo contendere to the charge of issuing a worthless check in the amount of $160, in violation of section 832.05, Florida Statutes (1991)....

...provides that a person is justified in the use of force when he "reasonably believes" such conduct is necessary to defend himself or to prevent death or great bodily injury. Likewise, § 776.05 permits a law enforcement officer to use force when he "reasonably believes" it is necessary to defend himself. Further, § 832.05 makes it unlawful to issue checks when the maker knows that he has insufficient funds in deposit to cover the checks....

...However, the section does not apply when the payee "has reason to believe" that sufficient funds were not on deposit when the check was issued. The court, in Dirk v. State, 305 So.2d 187 (Fla. 1974), upheld this statute as valid when the phrase "reason to believe" was constitutionally attacked. The Dirk court stated that § 832.05 was neither vague nor ambiguous because it conveyed a sufficient warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practice....

...This cause has been transferred to us by the District Court of Appeal, Second District, pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 2.1, subd. a(5), 32 F.S.A., to review an order of the Circuit Court of Pinellas County upholding the constitutional validity of Section 832.05, Florida Statutes, thereby vesting jurisdiction in this Court pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution (1973), F.S.A. Appellant was charged with obtaining property in return for a worthless check negotiated on June 14, 1972, in violation of Section 832.05, Florida Statutes....

...atute. Appellant then pled nolo contendere to the charge, and the trial court placed him on probation for one year, withholding adjudication of guilt. The sole question presented by appellant for our determination is the constitutionality vel non of Section 832.05, Florida Statutes....

...State, 80 Fla. 768, 87 So. 60 (1920); United States v. Frazier, 444 F.2d 235 (5th Cir.1971); State v. Medlin, 273 So.2d 394 (Fla. 1973); State v. Kahler, 232 So.2d 166 (Fla. 1970); Jefferson ex rel. v. Sweat, 76 So.2d 494 (Fla. 1954). Furthermore, Section 832.05, Florida Statutes, conveying a sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practice, is neither vague nor ambiguous....

...We are not unmindful of three recent decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States relative to criminal law presumptions; [1] however, they have been carefully examined and we find that they do not vitiate our prior decisions upholding the constitutionality of Section 832.05, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, we hold Section 832.05, Florida Statutes, to be constitutional and affirm the judgment of the trial court....

...ADKINS, C.J., and BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur. ERVIN, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion. DEKLE, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and agrees with ERVIN, J. ERVIN, Justice (concurring in part; dissenting in part). Appellant was specifically charged with violating Section 832.05(3), F.S., but he attacks Chapter 832, F.S....

...generally as violative of his rights to due process and against self-incrimination under the Federal and State constitutions. Florida Legal Services was granted leave to file a brief as amicus curiae on behalf of Appellant. Appellant urges us to reconsider our prior decisions upholding Section 832.05 because the United States Supreme Court has since clarified the constitutionality of statutory criminal presumptions, such as provided by Section 832.05(6)....

...ory presumptions. 382 U.S., at 139, 86 S.Ct. 279. Thus, in my opinion, the test finally and clearly enunciated in Barnes, supra, applies in the instant case and requires this Court to re-examine its prior opinions with respect to the presumptions of Section 832.05(6)....

...ity of Statutory Criminal Presumptions," 22 Stan.L. Rev. 341 (1970), and "The Constitutionality of Statutory Criminal Presumptions," 34 U.Chi.L.Rev. 141 (1966). Upon review of the instant statute, it appears the essential elements of the crime under Section 832.05(3) are: (1) obtaining any services, goods, wares or other things of value by (2) the making, drawing, uttering, issuing or delivery of (3) a check, draft or other written order upon any bank, person, firm or corporation (4) with knowle...

...In none of these situations would it be both beyond a reasonable doubt and more likely than not that a maker had criminal knowledge of insufficient funds and intent to defraud, the test here applicable. Yet subsection (6) would require a person charged with violating Section 832.05 to overcome precisely those presumptions in order to prove his innocence....

...If these applicable safeguards were brought to bear, much of the harshness of check collecting would be curtailed. Apparently no relief at the state level is in sight but there is hope the Federal courts may intervene. In summary, I would reconsider our prior decisions regarding Section 832.05 in light of the recent United States Supreme Court decisions in the area of statutory criminal presumptions. For the reasons stated, I find unconstitutional only subsection (6) of Section 832.05 and would recede from our prior decisions to that extent....

...See also 2 Wharton's Criminal Law and Procedure, § 630 at 405. NOTES [1] By the same information the defendant was charged with and found guilty of obtaining property in return for a worthless check — the same check involved in the instant appeal — in violation of Fla. Stat. § 832.05(3)(a) (1971), F.S.A....

...the second time merely charged him with uttering and issuing a bank check with knowledge that he did not have sufficient funds on deposit to pay the same. He asserts that at worst this was a misdemeanor not a felony. This is the offense condemned by Section 832.05(2), Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...In order to point up the distinction which we hereafter emphasize it should be observed that Shargaa was convicted of issuing the worthless check but there is no allegation or contention that he received anything of value in exchange therefor. By way of contrast, Section 832.05(3) condemns the issuance of a worthless check in exchange for goods or other things of value. Shargaa was not charged under this latter section. We come now to the critical point suggested by the petition. Section 832.05(6) (a), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., announces the penalty for a violation of Section 832.05, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...Inasmuch as the amount of the check "issued" by Shargaa was one hundred dollars it has been assumed without being decided that the offense for which he was convicted was a felony because of the apparent analogy (with regard to the amount involved) between Section 832.05, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., the worthless check statute, and Section 811.021, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., the larceny statute....

...e statutes above quoted and in view of our opinion in Kimmons v. State, 156 Fla. 448, 23 So.2d 523. We have the view that the analysis of the situation submitted by the petitioner is sound. We are compelled to conclude that the offense proscribed by Section 832.05(2) must be classed as a misdemeanor inasmuch as it is not otherwise classified as a felony, either by definition or by penalty. As a misdemeanor it is punishable under Section 775.07, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. We do not undertake to pass upon whether the offense condemned by Section 832.05 *386 (3) could amount to a felony if the property received in exchange for a worthless check has a value of $100 or more....

...We find this purported affirmative defense insufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment. While lack of knowledge is a statutory defense to a criminal charge of passing a worthless check, it is not a defense in the parallel civil worthless check statute. Compare § 832.05, Fla....

...[8] Section 68.065 provides an exception to awarding treble damages, but that exception is not applicable in the instant case. See § 68.065(6), Fla. Stat. (1995). [9] Unlike the civil worthless check statute, the criminal worthless check statute, section 832.05(2)(a), Florida Statutes, does not apply to any post-dated check or "any check when the payee or holder knows or has been expressly notified prior to the drawing or uttering of the check, or has reason to believe, that the drawer did no...

...supplying the debtor materials. Further, the debtor argues that, even if the creditor relied on the issuance of the two checks, any reliance by the creditor on the payments was unreasonable under the circumstances. The debtor cites Florida Statute, § 832.05, and contends that this statute prohibits the payee or holder of a check who has actual knowledge, or has reason to believe, prior to the drawing of the check, that the drawer did not have on deposit with the drawee sufficient funds to insure payment of the instrument, from recovering on a postdated check. Fla.Stat.Ann. § 832.05 (West 1989)....

...se the money to fund the checking account was to come from the proceeds of a specific job for which the debtor was not going to be paid. There are two flaws with the debtor's argument. First, the debtor's reliance on the language of Florida Statute, § 832.05, is erroneous....

...This is an appeal of an Order revoking the probation of the Appellant on account of her alleged violation of certain conditions of her probation. It was alleged that she violated her probation by writing worthless checks. It was proved she wrote post-dated checks which are promissory notes under the law. See Section 832.05(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1975)....

...Delva, 575 So.2d 643, 644-45 (Fla.1991). Because there is little possibility the jury would have acquitted Morin of the bad check charges without the erroneous instruction, we affirm his convictions and sentences. AFFIRMED. COBB and PALMER, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Section 832.05(4), Florida Statutes (1999)....

...Gen., and Calvin L. Fox, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. Before HENDRY, SCHWARTZ and NESBITT, JJ. NESBITT, Judge. The defendant appeals from his adjudication and sentence for the offenses of: (1) obtaining property in return for a worthless check contrary to Section 832.05(3), Florida Statutes (1975) [Count I]; and (2) grand larceny contrary to Section 812.021, Florida Statutes (1975) [Count II]....

...another party, would have previously cleared his account. The victim did not deposit the check until the date agreed, whereupon it was promptly dishonored for insufficient funds. With respect to Count I, the defendant contends that the exception to Section 832.05(3), supra, is applicable....

...the drawee sufficient funds to insure payment thereof. By her own testimony, the payee (victim) had reason to believe that the drawer (defendant) did not have sufficient funds on deposit to ensure payment on the check. Consequently, the provision of Section 832.05(3), supra, that affords an accused an affirmative defense, is applicable. Tappan v. State, 277 So.2d 310 (Fla.4th DCA 1973). For the same reason, the defendant could not be convicted of the lesser included offense under Section 832.05(3)(b), supra....

...No such showing was made here. Perhaps this is an area our supreme court should revisit. But, until it does, we are bound by the established case law. Accordingly, we affirm the departure sentence in this case. AFFIRMED. COBB and COWART, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] § 832.05(4), Fla....

...Although we find no merit to appellant's contention that the trial court erred in finding him guilty of violating probation, we must remand for resentencing. Appellant was charged by information with having obtained property in return for a worthless check in violation of section 832.05, Florida Statutes (1979)....

...Horne was arrested by Tampa police and spent a day in a HiUsborough County jail before a North Carolina district attorney recalled the arrest warrant. Apparently, North Carolina law, like Florida law, does not permit criminal charges on postdated checks. See, e.g., § 832.05, Fla....

...Gen., for appellee. Before HUBBART, C.J., and SCHWARTZ and BASKIN, JJ. PER CURIAM. The defendant Eric N. Ingram appeals a judgment of conviction and sentence based on two counts of obtaining property in return *1188 for a worthless check in excess of $50, [§ 832.05(4), Fla....

...The defendant contends that the trial court committed fundamental error in: (a) failing to give any instruction whatever to the jury relating to a material element of the crimes for which he was charged and convicted, namely, the obtaining through a worthless check of "any services, goods, wares, or other things of value." [§ 832.05(4)(a), Fla....

...It seems clear beyond dispute that the jury here was completely misled as to what the defendant was charged with and had no knowledge whatever as to a material element of the crime which made these offenses felonies as opposed to misdemeanors [compare § 832.05(2), Fla....

...bears a reasonable relation to testimonial deceit and should be admissible for impeachment purposes." Id. at 815 (quoting People v. Spates, 77 Ill.2d 193, 204, 32 Ill.Dec. 333, 339, 395 N.E.2d 563, 569 (Ill. 1979)). Mrs. Johnson was convicted under section 832.05(2)(a), Florida Statutes, which provides that [i]t is unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to draw, make, utter, issue, or deliver to another any check, draft, or other written order on any bank or depository, or to use a debit...

...Whether the defendant issued the check involved herein with knowledge that there were insufficient funds and with the requisite intent to defraud may be determined from the circumstances. Appellant's second point urges error upon the ground of the alleged unconstitutionality of Fla. Stat. § 832.05(6), F.S.A., which provides that "......

PER CURIAM. The appellant was charged in the trial court with the issuance of a worthless check, in violation of § 832.05(3), Fla.Stat., F.S.A....

...An appeal from this ruling has been duly prosecuted to this court under Clerk’s File No. 69-974. These appeals have now been consolidated. On the appeal on the merits, the appellant contends that her conviction is not supported by evidence of a violation of § 832.05(3), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., urging that the evidence indicated that the check in question was post-dated and, further, that at most the appellant should have been convicted of giving a worthless check for a preexisting debt, contrary to the provisions of § 832.05(2),- Fla.Stat., F.S.A., which would have subjected her to a conviction of a misdemeanor and a maximum sentence of six months....

...inding that the appellant did pass a worthless check which was not post-dated. However, the record clearly indicates that such an event was for the purpose of discharging a pre-existing debt and, therefore, the conviction for an alleged violation of § 832.05(3), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., was in error and the conviction should have been for a violation of § 832.-05(2), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., with a sentence not in excess of six months. To this extent, the judgment of conviction is hereby amended to show a conviction of a violation of § 832.05(2), Fla.Stat., F.S.A....

...Public Defender, and Paul H. Markoff, Legal Intern, West Palm Beach, for appellee. *110 DOWNEY, Judge. This is an appeal by the state from an order granting a new trial. Appellee was charged with two counts of obtaining property in return for worthless checks in violation of § 832.05, F.S....

...THREADGILL, Judge. Robert L. Craver was tried by a jury and convicted of one count of racketeering in *1252 violation of section 895.03(3), Florida Statutes (1985), and nine counts of obtaining property in return for worthless checks, in violation of section 832.05(4), Florida Statutes (Supp....

...However, the clerk did not testify at trial. Expert handwriting testimony at trial established that the appellant had written the check, but there was no evidence that the appellant received anything of value or that the appellant was the person who passed the check. § 832.05(2)(b) and (4)(a), Fla....

...uring an indeterminate period of time would be subject to conviction for bank fraud. This finding would be contrary to the apparent intent of Florida's legislature, which has long since enacted a statute dealing specifically with passing bad checks. § 832.05, Fla. Stat. Indeed, § 832.05(4) deals with precisely the conduct at issue here. For a court to find that § 655.0322(6) is merely an alternative statute to criminalize the same acts covered by § 832.05(4), it would have to conclude that the Florida legislature intended the same conduct to constitute either a first degree misdemeanor or third degree felony under § 832.05(4), or a second degree felony under § 655.0322(6), contrary to the plain language of § 655.0322(6) and inconsistent with the manifest intent of Florida's legislature....

...MELVIN, WOODROW M., SR., Associate Judge. The Appellant, who will hereafter be referred to as the Defendant, was informed against and, by jury, found guilty of the charges contained in three counts, each count charging her with uttering a separate worthless check in violation of Section 832.05 Florida Statutes....

...the indispensable element of intend to defraud. With this thrust, the Defendant's arrow hits the mark. The Supreme Court of Florida has clearly established the doctrine that "intent to defraud" is an indispensable element in proof of a violation of Section 832.05, Florida Statutes....

COPE, J. William Wells appeals his conviction on two counts of giving worthless checks in violation of subsection 832.05(2), Fla. Stat. (1995). We affirm. Defendant-appellant Wells contends that there was a fundamental error in the jury instructions. The jury was given the standard instruction for subsection 832.05(2)....

...ut of ticket sales. It is true that under the statute, the defendant can be criminally liable only if he knew at the time of the delivery of the checks to the travel agency that there were not sufficient funds with which to pay them on presentation. § 832.05(2)(a), Fla....

...issue was a corporate check on which he signed as an officer of the corporation. We reject this argument. The statute by its terms applies to any person, firm, or corporation which issues or delivers an insufficient funds check, knowing it be such. § 832.05(2)(a), Fla....

...The departure purportedly was based on cooperation by Scott and a need for restitution. Because there was no evidence to support the downward departure, we reverse. Scott pleaded guilty to the third-degree felony charge of obtaining property in return for a worthless check in violation of section 832.05, Florida Statutes (2001)....

...1986, subject to approval by the Legislature. [6] Further, we find no error in the trial judge's imposition of a sentence combining community control and probation. [7] AFFIRMED. COBB, C.J., concurs. DAUKSCH, J., dissents without opinion. NOTES [1] § 832.05(4)(a), Fla....

...By an original petition for a writ of habeas corpus Penrod seeks release from the State prison. The main point to be determined is whether the obtaining of property of a value in excess of $100 in exchange for a worthless check contitutes a felony under Section 832.05(3), Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...He further contends that the statute pursuant to which he was convicted defined a misdemeanor rather than a felony. Petitioner attempts to extract some comfort from our opinion in State ex rel. Shargaa v. Culver, Fla., 113 So.2d 383 . We there held that the offense condemned by Section 832.05(2), Florida Statutes, constituted a misdemeanor only. This was so because under this section the crime of issuing a worthless check could be committed without obtaining anything of value. Inasmuch as Section 832.05(6), provided that any person violating Section 832.05(2) “shall be punished in the same manner as provided by law for punishment for the crime of larceny,” it would be impossible to apply the larceny statute for the reason that the penalty for larceny is gauged by the value of the property stolen. Section 811.021, Florida Statutes. *336 The situation presented in the instant petition is different. Here the petitioner was convicted of a violation of Section 832.05(3), which condemns the issuance of a worthless check in exchange for goods or other things of value....

a worthless check contrary to Florida Statute § 832.05. b. It is alleged that James Edward Ferguson,

PER CURIAM. Appellant’s conviction of Obtaining Property in Return for Worthless Check, in violation of Section 832.05(3), Florida Statutes (1973), is reversed because of the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury that intent to defraud is an indispensable element of this offense....

fourteen separate worthless check charges under Section 832.05(4)(a), Florida Statutes. We affirm on all issues

State, 318 So.2d 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). . § 832.05, Fla.Stat. (1979). . We are aware that the holding

find that Respondent by his actions violated Section 832.05(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1979), in that he

...which motions were denied. It is the denial of appellant’s motions for directed verdict, based upon the alleged insufficiency of the evidence, that is urged as error on appeal. The statute under which the information appears to have been drawn — § 832.05(3) —reads as follows : “Obtaining property in return for worthless checks, etc....

...r draft or other written order where the payee knows or has been expressly notified or has reason to believe that the drawer did not have on deposit or to his credit with the drawee sufficient funds to insure payment thereof.” [Emphasis supplied.] Section 832.05(2) makes it unlawful to issue a worthless check without obtaining anything of value in exchange. These two subsections therefore differ in one major aspect in that § 832.05(3) condemns, in addition to the issuance of a worthless check, the obtaining of services, goods, wares or other things of value by means of the check. Section 832.05(6) provides the penalty for violations under § 832.05 by prescribing the penalty to be in the same manner as provided by law for punishment of the crime of larceny....

...�the property stolen.” The value of property obtained in exchange for the worthless check is analogous to the value of the property stolen under the larceny statute. Accordingly, it would be impossible to apply the larceny statute to violations of § 832.05(2). For violations under § 832.05(3), the penalty to be applied would be measured by the value of the “merchandise” secured in exchange for the worthless check....

PER CURIAM. Appellant was informed against under section 832.05, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., upon a charge of unlawfully uttering, issuing, and delivering a check for the payment of money in the amount of $350, well-knowing at the time of the issuing and delivering of the check that the drawer and ma...

THREADGILL, Judge. The State of Florida appeals a nonfinal order dismissing an information 1 charging the appellee Craig Scherer with obtaining property by felony worthless check, a violation of section 832.05(4)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (1991)....

...was a thing of value. We concluded that the check was a thing of value because it was evidence of a debt which could not be redeemed without payment of consideration. We therefore hold that the insurance policy is a thing of value as contemplated in section 832.05(4)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (1991)....

there held that since the offense condemned by § 832.-05(2), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., must be classed

...s 11 and 29 of the Canons ■of Professional Ethics, Article XI, Paragraph 2 of the Integration .Rule of the Florida Bar; Rules 1, 27, 28 and 30 of the Additional Rules concerning the conduct ■of attorneys in Florida, 31 F.S.A. and Florida Statute § 832.05, F.S.A....

HOBSON, Judge. The defendant, John A. Cahill, was tried for the crime of obtaining property in return for a worthless check in violation of § 832.05(3), Fla.Stat., F.S.A....

return for a worthless check, in violation of Section 832.-05(3), Florida Statutes (1975). He was given probation

pay the same upon presentation, contrary to Section 832.05, within 561.29(l)(a), Florida Statutes. Check

...Salcines filed a petition for a temporary and permanent injunction against appellants, alleging that they were using the Britton Plaza location for the operation of bingo games in violation of sections 849.09 and 849.093, Florida Statutes (1979), and were therefore maintaining a nuisance under section 832.05, Florida Statutes (1979), and seeking an order declaring the Britton Plaza Bingo Hall a nuisance, a temporary restraining order abating the nuisance, and a permanent injunction....

in return for a worthless check in violation of § 832.05, Fla.Stats., F.S.A. He was tried before a jury

BLUE, Judge. Eileen A. Nece appeals her conviction for obtaining services and property in return for a worthless check, a third-degree felony under section 832.05(4), Florida Statutes (1993)....

...2d DCA 1990) (holding evidence insufficient to sustain felony conviction when the State failed to prove that “the check was the inducement for the furnishing of goods or services”). Accordingly, we reverse the felony conviction. On remand, the trial court shall enter a misdemeanor conviction under section 832.05(2) and resentence accordingly....

...ts for fraudulent business conduct via treble damages in civil theft cases and felony sanctions (including incarceration) for criminal theft. Indeed, section 812.014 is not the only arrow in the State’s quiver. Florida’s worthless check statute, section 832.05, Florida Statutes, was enacted to provide criminal remedies that address “the evil” of knowingly passing checks and other instruments that wreak “mischief to trade and commerce.” § 832.05(1), Fla. Stat. (2012). Section 812.04 and section 832.05 work hand-in-glove; nothing precludes their use in conjunction against a defendant....

KANNER, Judge. Judgment of conviction and sentence here appealed were imposed against defendant-appellant, John R. Crowell, consequent upon jury verdict by which he was found guilty of a felony under an information pursuant to section 832.05(3), Florida Statutes, F.S....

...y of 1961, prior to the effective date of the 1961 legislative enactment revising the worthless check statute. The violation of this accused must be considered under the statutes in existence at the time the worthless check was ■ made and uttered. Section 832.05(3) of the worthless check statute makes it unlawful to obtain any services, goods, wares, or other things of value by means of a check, knowing at the time of the making, drawing, uttering, issuing, or delivering of it that the maker does not have sufficient funds on deposit with which to pay it upon presentation. The punishment therefor, by section 832.05(6) (a), is in the same manner as provided by law for punishment of the crime of larceny....

...State, Fla.App.1961, 128 So.2d 756 , wherein the First District Court of Appeal, speaking through Judge Wigginton, reversed and returned the case to the lower court for entry of an appropriate judgment and sentence for a misdemeanor because of violation of section 832.05(2)....

...There, a building contractor had been charged with having obtained money, property, or other things of value by uttering and passing worthless checks, knowing at the time that the funds to pay them were insufficient. In considering the evidence in the light of section 832.05(3), the court observed at page 758: “In order for one to be guilty of the offense proscribed by the statute, the worthless check uttered and issued by the person charged must have been the means by which the goods, services, wares or other thing of value was obtained....

...Appellant admits that he executed and delivered the worthless check, at which time Penn delivered the corrected deed; nor does he dispute that at such time he deducted the $20 handling fee. The facts are sufficient to bring appellant’s offense within the periphery of section 832.05(3) of the worthless check statute but not as a felony, since the sum acquired is less than $100....

reads as follows: "The court charges you that Section 832.-05(2) [(a)] (2), F.S. provides that: “It shall

issuing worthless checks, third degree felonies [Section 832.-05(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1975)] which are punishable

...less check charge after entering a plea of nolo contendere and reserving his right to appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss. We reverse. Appellant was charged by an information with the felony of uttering a worthless check under Section 832.05, Florida Statutes (1977)....

...The check in question was delivered on September 30, 1976, and was dated September 31,1976, an impossible date. Thereafter, the check was returned for insufficient funds. Appellant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the check was postdated and, therefore, outside the scope of Section 832.05....

...ified prior to the drawing or uttering of same or has reason to believe that the drawer did not have on deposit or to his credit with the drawee sufficient funds to insure payment as aforesaid, nor shall this section apply to any postdated check.” § 832.05(2)(a), Fla.Stat....

...e., issued on December 22, 1972, and dated December 23, 1972, is a postdated check has been considered by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in O’Masta v. State, 336 So.2d 686 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). The court reasoned that the check was “postdated” as that term is used in Section 832.05(2)(a)....

them in the manner proscribed by Fla.Stat., 1967, § 832.05(3), F.S.A. For this reason the judgment appealed

...uring an indeterminate period of time would be subject to conviction for bank fraud. This finding would be contrary to the apparent intent of Florida's legislature, which has long since enacted a statute dealing specifically with passing bad checks. § 832.05, Fla. Stat. Indeed, § 832.05(4) deals with precisely the conduct at issue here. For a court to find that § 655.0322(6) is merely an alternative statute to criminalize the same acts covered by § 832.05(4), it would have to conclude that the Florida legislature intended the same conduct to constitute either a first degree misdemeanor or third degree felony under § 832.05(4), or a second degree felony under § 655.0322(6)....

...’s loss. See Winborn v. State, 625 So.2d 977 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). We reverse the restitution order in case number 98-21169. Affirmed in part, reversed in part. ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., Concur. . § 812.014(2)(c)1, Fla. Slat. (1997). . § 832.05(4), Fla....

more), third degree felonies, in violation of section 832.05(4). Lower Case No. 14-13480 — five counts

OWEN, Judge. Appellant was convicted of obtaining property, to-wit: money, in return for a worthless check, as proscribed by, F.S., Section 832.05(3) (a), F.S.A....

...However, we do not need to decide any of these points in view of our determination that appellant is entitled to be discharged. The judgment and sentence are severally reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to discharge appellant from the crime charged. Reversed and remanded. REED, C. J., and MAGER, J., concur. . Section 832.05(3) Obtaining property in return for worthless cheeJcs, eto.; penalty....

check he knew to be worthless, contrary to Section 832.05(3), Florida Statutes (1975). Jones’ sole point

charges of issuing worthless checks in violation of § 832.05 (3), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Judgments were entered

property in return for a worthless draft under § 832.-05(3) Fla.Stat. Indeed, under this Chapter the State

OWEN, Judge. Appellant was charged by information with obtaining property by means of a worthless check, proscribed by Fla.Stat. § 832.05(3) (1973)....

PER CURIAM. Pamela Posner appeals her conviction of obtaining property in return for a worthless check, contrary to section 832.05(4), Florida Statutes (1989)....

...goods earlier received necessary to prove a violation of section 832.-05(4), obtaining property in exchange for a worthless check. We agree and reverse. We make no determination as to whether appellant may be guilty of the misdemean- or of violating section 832.05(2), Florida Statutes (1989), because of the factual question of whether the transaction in issue involved a “post-dated check” which constitutes a defense to that misdemeanor....

...Holder’s presentence report reveals 29 worthless check convictions, one conviction for embezzlement, and a conviction for three counts of forgery. The convictions were obtained out of state, and there is no indication whether the worthless check offenses at conviction were misdemeanors or felonies. Section 832.05, Florida Statutes (1983), which prohibits the issuance of *89 worthless checks, designates such issuance as a misdemeanor of the second degree or a felony of the third degree, depending upon the amount of the worthless draft....

SHIVERS, Judge. Appellant in this case, Kenneth Bruton, was originally charged by four separate informations with four counts of obtaining property in return for a worthless check, in violation of section 832.05(4), Florida Stat *1196 utes....

...everse and remand to reinstate the charges. Appellee was originally charged with five counts relating to the passing of two bad checks on April 2, 1990, and April 3, 1990. Count I alleged grand theft on April 2, 1990. Count II alleged a violation of Section 832.05(4) by the passing of a check # 253 in the amount of $625. Count III alleged a violation of Section 832.-05(3)(a) by depositing “a bank check.” Count IV alleged a grand theft on April 3, 1990. Count V alleged a violation of Section 832.05(4) by passing check # 264 in the amount of $500. Appellee was convicted and sentenced on those charges. Thereafter, the state filed a new information in two counts. Count I alleged a violation of section 832.05(4) by passing check # 266 in the amount of $1,425 on April 3, 1990, and count II alleged a violation of the *1099 same statute by passing check # 248 in the amount of $600 on April 4, 1990....

...he various checks were drawn had insufficient funds, the presentment of each check amounts to a separate offense. In other words, the presentment of each check appears to have been an independent transaction requiring a separate criminal intent. See § 832.05(4), Fla.Stat....

case raises the constitutional validity of Section 832.05 (6), Florida Statutes (1975), the “bad check”

obtaining things of value in violation of F.S. Section 832.05(3), F.S.A. On 29 September 1970 the defendant

...On August 16, 1955, Greer was adjudged guilty and sentenced to a term of five years pursuant to conviction of the offense of issuing a worthless check in exchange for “money and other thing of value”. It is apparent that Greer was convicted and sentenced pursuant to Section 832.05(3) and Section 832.05(6), Florida Statutes, F.S.A. It is unnecessary for us to consider the apparent disparity between the penalty provisions of former Section 832.01, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., and Section 832.05(3), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., for the reason that the petitioner has already served the complete sentence for the original conviction....

...ber 14, 1956, he was tried and convicted of the crime of issuing a worthless check for the payment of money with knowledge at the time that he did not have sufficient funds on deposit to pay the check. Obviously, this second offense was condemned by Section 832.05(2), Florida Statutes, F.S.A. The principle distinction between the two offenses is that under Section 832.05(2) one can be convicted for the mere issuance of a worthless check without receipt of anything of value in exchange. Under Section 832.05(3), the crime consists of the issuance of a worthless check in exchange for services, goods, wares or other things of value....

...We deem it to be our responsibility under such circumstances to suggest sua sponte if necessary, any aspect of illegality in the restraint even though not mentioned by the prisoner and even though it might lead to a discharge from custody. See Anglin v. Mayo, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 918 . We have this date held that Section 832.05(2), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., which prescribes that the mere issuance of a worthless check constitutes a misdemeanor punishable under Section 775.07, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...The reasons for our position are adequately delineated in the case last cited. Repetition here would be unduly burdensome. It will be recalled that petitioner Greer is being held under a commitment for a one year sentence beginning February 25, 1959. He was convicted of the offense condemned by Section 832.05(2), supra, and sentenced to one year in prison....

granted the motion to dismiss on the authority of section 832.05(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1985) which provides

...Carroll Dennis Ford appeals an order summarily denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse and remand. Appellant was charged with obtaining property valued at one hundred dollars by means of a worthless check, in violation of section 832.05, Florida Statutes (1979)....

of uttering worthless checks in violation of section 832.05(2) of the Florida Statutes. The lower court

WALDEN, Judge. Al Smolen and Joel Courtman were charged, tried and adjudged guilty of the crime of uttering a worthless check under F.S.A. § 832.05(3). They appeal. We reverse. Our consideration is addressed to the trial court’s instructions to the jury. Uncertainty and confusion attended this trial step. F.S.A. § 832.05(2) defines and provides for one certain crime entitled, “Worthless checks; penalty.” F.S.A. § 832.05(3) defines and provides for another certain crime entitled, “Obtaining property in return for worthless checks, etc.; penalty.” The two crimes, while alike in some particulars, contain certain critical differences....

DOWNEY, Chief Judge. The appellant pleaded nolo contendere to obtaining property by worthless check in violation of Section 832.05(3), Florida Statutes (1975)....

...ual 20 days to correct an overdraft and thereby avoid criminal prosecution. There are no Florida cases that deal with this question. However, for reasons hereinafter set forth, we reject the appellant’s contention and affirm his conviction. First, Section 832.05(4), Florida Statutes (1975), specifically provides that payment of a dishonored check shall not constitute a defense or ground for the dismissal of charges....

issued to Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. . Under Section 832.05(3), Florida Statutes (1973), where the payee

...The Alachua County sentence was valid. The information charged Harrington with issuing the worthless check in exchange for “services, goods, wares or other things of the value of $250.00.” This information properly charged an offense which constitutes a felony under Section 832.05(3), Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...Pie was charged with issuing a worthless check but it was not alleged that he received anything of value in exchange therefor. Consequently, the crime charged in St. Johns *262 County constituted a misdemeanor for which the maximum penalty would be imprisonment not exceeding 90 days. State ex rel. Shargaa v. Culver, supra. Section 832.05(3), Florida Statutes, F.S.A., was amended by Chapter 61-284, Laws of 1961, evidently to correct the defects pointed out in our Shargaa decision....

WIGGINTON, Judge. Appellant appeals his conviction after jury trial of depositing a worthless check with intent to defraud in violation of section 832.05(3), Florida Statutes, which provides: (a) It is unlawful for any person, by act or common scheme, to cash or deposit any item, as defined in section 674.-104(l)(g), in any bank or depository with intent to defraud....

...or delivery of a check ... payment of which is refused by the drawee because of lack of funds or credit, shall be prima facie evidence of intent to defraud .... Contrary to appellant’s contention, we hold that the phrase “to cash or deposit” as used in section 832.05(3)(a) is encompassed within the meaning of the term “delivery” in section 832.07....

...Finding the evidence sufficient to sustain the convictions of grand theft in case number 5D12-4005, we affirm without additional comment. However, we agree with Duncan that in case number 5D12-4008, the evidence supported a conviction for only a misdemeanor worthless check charge under section 832.05(2), Florida Statutes (2010)....

...Central Signs sent Duncan the requisite statutory notice of worthless check via certified mail. However, the check was never honored. Following a trial, a jury found Duncan guilty of obtaining property or services in return for a worthless check under section 832.05(4), Florida Statutes....

...suer.” Strickland v. State, 559 So.2d 1288, 1289 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (citing Helms v. State, 128 So.2d 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)). “A worthless check tendered for payment of a pre-existing debt will sustain only the lesser misdemeanor proscribed by section 832.05(2), Florida Statutes ....” Id....

...rendered by the payees with the hope or expectation that at the end of the work-week they would be paid for their services.” Helms, 128 So.2d at 757 . Similarly, in Strickland , the court found that a felony conviction could not be sustained under section 832.05 because there was “no indication that the offer of payment by check preceded the services rendered.” Strickland, 559 So.2d at 1289 ; accord Nece v....

SWANN, Judge. The State of Florida appeals from an order dismissing two informations which charged the defendant, Rand, and another, with violations of § 832.05(3), Fla.Stat., F.S.A....

...Gonzalez, 498 So.2d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), to be applicable to the facts of this case. In Tourismart, the Third District affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Touris-mart’s claim against Gonzalez, an employee of Gateway Travel & Tourism, Inc., under section 832.05, because that statute makes it a crime to issue a worthless check and does not contain a provision for civil recovery....

for a second degree misdemeanor, as provided in § 832.-05(2), Fla.Stat. Because the appellant was originally

uttering a worthless check in violation of Section 832.05(3) (a), F.S.1967, F.S.A., was found guilty

...This check was dishonored and returned because of insufficient funds and is the check upon which the prosecution and conviction were based. Appellant argues that he obtained nothing of value in return for his check of November 21, 1962, and that he was, at most, liable for prosecution for violation of Fla. Stat. § 832.05 (2), F.S.A. (uttering, issuing or delivering a worthless check) rather than Fla.Stat. § 832.05(3), F.S.A....

...In support of this argument appellant cites, inter alia, Harris v. State, Fla.App. 1960, 123 So.2d 752 , modified on cert. Fla., 136 So.2d 633 , 91 A.L.R.2d 1088 and Helms v. State, Fla.App.1961, 128 So.2d 756 . In each of these cases conviction for violation of Fla.Stat. § 832.05(3), F.S.A., was reversed when the evidence indicated that the check was delivered in satisfaction of a pre-exist-ing obligation....

...8 of the appellant’s continuing intent, by-means of successive checks, to defraud the prosecuting witness. Because of this distinction, appellant argues that the “single transaction” theory is inapplicable. Unlike the Tennessee Code, Fla.Stat. § 832.05(3), F.S.A., does not expressly designate “ ‘property which may be the subject of larceny’ ” as an object, the obtaining of which by means of a bad check constitutes a violation of the law....

...applicable. However, the essential result of the application of statutory language in Williams, whereby a violation of law was found in obtaining one bad check by means of another, was also reached in a jurisdiction where the Statute, like Fla.Stat. § 832.05, F.S.A., expressly designated “thing of value” as an object of swindling by means of worthless check....

...It is this value in the check itself, and the fact that the second check was the means-by which Mrs. Grimes was induced to part with the first check which distinguishes the instant case from the Harris and Helms-cases relied upon by appellant. In the Helms case the court spoke of the distinction between Fla.Stats. § 832.05(2) and § 832.05(3), F.S.A., in terms of the element of “inducement” to part with a “thing of value” in § 832.05(3) absent in § 832.05(2)....

...The evidence indicating that appellant, by delivery of the worthless check of November 21, induced Mrs. Grimes to part with the evidence of debt and of crime represented by the earlier check, suffices to sustain the conviction for violation of the provision of Fla.Stat. § 832.05(3), F.S.A....

SMITH, Acting Chief Judge. Adams was convicted of unlawfully obtaining property by means of a worthless check he knew to be worthless, contrary to Section 832.05(3), Florida Statutes (1975), which provides in part: It shall be unlawful for any person, ....

...that the person drawing the check did not have on deposit or to his credit with the bank sufficient funds to insure payment of the check upon presentation. *347 We hold that intent to defraud is not an essential element of the offense proscribed by Section 832.05(3)....

...State, 95 So.2d 20 (Fla.1957), cert. den., 355 U.S. 868 , 78 S.Ct. 117 , 2 L.Ed.2d 74 (1957) and held, as did State v. Yarboro, 194 N.C. 498 , 140 S.E. 216 (1927) and State v. Avery, 111 Kan. 588 , 207 P. 838 (1922) under comparable statutes, that a conviction under Section 832.05 may be had absent proof of an intent to defraud....

of $150, a third degree felony pursuant to section 832.05(4)(c), Florida Statutes (Supp.1992). Pretrial

PARKER, Acting Chief Judge. Ed Miranda appeals the judgment and sentence for obtaining property in return for a worthless check in violation of section 832.05(4), Florida Statutes (1997). Miranda argues that the State did not prove a violation of section 832.05(4) because (1) the State did not establish that Miranda had the requisite intent, and (2) the check was delivered in payment of a preexisting obligation....

...ay after Miranda delivered the check. The check was not presented to the bank until September 1998, at which time the check was dishonored by the bank. Miranda argues that the State failed to prove that he had the intent to tender a worthless check. Section 832.05(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1997), provides, in pertinent part: It is unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to obtain any services, goods, wares, or other things of value by means of a check ......

...(Emphasis added.) Knowledge that there are insufficient funds in the bank on which the check is drawn is an essential element of the crime of obtaining property in return for a worthless check. See State v. Berry, 358 So.2d 545, 546 (Fla.1978) (construing section 832.05(3), Florida Statutes (1975), which is renumbered as section 832.05(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1997))....

...In this case, the State presented prima facie evidence of knowledge under section 832.07. However, Miranda rebutted the prima facie showing of knowledge under section 832.07 with the bank representative’s testimony as to the avail *1197 able funds in Securities’ bank account the day after the check was presented. Section 832.05(7), Florida Statutes (1997), also provides for prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds in the event of “the withdrawing from deposit with the drawee named in the check ... of the funds on deposit with such drawee necessary to ensure payment of such check ... upon presentation within a reasonable time after ... delivering of a check.” The State did not establish prima facie evidence of knowledge under section 832.05(7) because the State failed to prove that Miranda withdrew money from the account in question after he delivered the check for September’s rent....

...While it is clear that someone withdrew money from the account, Miranda was not the only person with access to the account. Because Miranda rebutted the prima facie evidence of knowledge under section 832.07 and the State did not establish knowledge under section 832.05(7), we conclude that Miranda’s conviction is not supported by the evidence. Because this issue requires reversal, we do not reach Miranda’s argument that section 832.05(4) does not apply in this case because the rent payment was a preexisting obligation. Finally, the State argues that, in the event this court reverses the conviction under section 832.05(4), it should remand with directions to enter a judgment finding Miranda guilty of the misdemeanor offense of issuing a worthless check....

...d John Stephens did not then have sufficient funds on deposit in or credit with such bank or depository with which to pay the same on presentation, a copy of said check or draft is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit No. 1, contrary to Section 832.05, Florida Statutes....

...of said check or draft that the *192 said John Stephens did not then have sufficient funds on deposit in or credit with such bank.or depository with which to pay the same on presentation, a copy of said check or draft is attached hereto contrary to Section 832.05, Florida Statutes.” At trial, the State established the following undisputed facts: The two checks referred to in Counts I and II of the amended information were delivered for deposit by appellant to the Capital City First National Bank of Tallahassee on March 6, 1974, and March 16, 1974, respectively....

...At trial, however, the State did not show that John Stephens had insufficient funds, but merely showed that International Leasing Corporation had insufficient funds. As noted in the amended information, appellant was charged with violations of F.S. § 832.05 which provides, in pertinent part, “it shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to draw, make, utter, issue or deliver ....

...ap-pellee, Pedro R. Gonzalez. We reverse. Appellee was charged by information with one count of RICO in violation of section 895.03(3), Florida Statutes (1993), and three counts of cashing or depositing an item with intent to defraud in violation of section 832.05(3), Florida Statutes (1993)....

...Appellant, State of Florida, filed this timely appeal of an order of the trial court granting appellee’s motion to dismiss. Appellee, Leslie B. Bower, was charged in a one-count information with obtaining property in return for a worthless check in violation of Section 832.05, Florida Statutes....

...tion; that at the time of the delivery as aforesaid of the said bank check, the said Leslie B. Bower knew that she did not have sufficient funds on deposit in or credit with said bank with which to pay the same upon presentation; contrary to Chapter 832.05, Florida Statutes....

...wing at the time of the drawing, making, uttering, issuing or delivering such check or draft that the maker or drawer thereof has not sufficient funds on deposit in or credit with such bank or depository with which to pay the same on presentation . [Section 832.05(2)(a)] The information sufficiently apprises appel-lee of the offense with which she is charged as required by Fla.R.Crim.P....

...with such drawee necessary to insure payment of said check, draft or other written order upon presentation within a reasonable time after negotiation . shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds in or credit with such drawee . [Section 832.05(6), Florida Statutes]....

PER CURIAM. The defendant was charged with one count of obtaining property in return for a worthless check, contrary to section 832.05, Florida Statutes (1991), in each of two separate informations....

...there were insufficient funds in the account to cover the amount of the check, but had assured him that he would transfer the funds from another account. After consulting with management, the salesman accepted the check and the sale was consummated. Section 832.05(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1991) expressly provides that no crime may be charged with respect to the giving of a check if the payee knows that the drawee does not have sufficient funds on deposit or credit to ensure payment....

...r to the public. Therefore, we reverse and remand for the imposition of a nonstate prison sanction. In each of two separate cases, McCarthy pleaded to one count of obtaining property in return for a worthless check, in violation of section 832.05(4)(c), Florida Statutes (2010)....

...Public Defenders, West Palm Beach, for respondent. BOYD, Justice. The District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, has certified these two questions as being of great public interest: Is the Florida Standard Jury Instruction entitled "Worthless Check — Obtaining Property F.S. 832.05(3)", set forth on pages 203 and 204 of the Second Edition, defective because it fails to instruct the jury that intent to defraud is an indispensable element of the crime of obtaining property in return for a worthless check? In a prosecution for violation of Section 832.05(3), Florida Statutes (1975), where the trial court has instructed the jury in accordance with the Florida Standard Jury Instruction entitled "Worthless Check — Obtaining Property F.S. 832.05(3)", as set forth on pages 203 and 204 of the Second Edition, is fundamental error committed when the trial court does not additionally instruct the jury that intent to defraud is an indispensable element of the crime of obtaining property in return for a worthless check? *546 The decision [1] of the district court passed upon these questions, giving us jurisdiction by certiorari. [2] The criminal offense of obtaining property in return for a worthless check, described in Section 832.05, Florida Statutes, [3] requires, as an essential element, knowledge of insufficient funds on deposit in the bank on which the check is drawn, but it does not require intent to defraud....

...ing, issuing or delivering of said check or draft that the maker thereof has not sufficient funds on deposit in or credit with such bank or depository with which to pay the same upon presentation... . . [4] "Worthless Check — Obtaining Property," F.S. 832.05(3), Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, 2d Ed., p....

PER CURIAM. Appellant was convicted of violation of Section 832.05(3), Florida Statutes (1975). The trial court instructed the jury in accordance with the Florida Standard Jury Instructions In Criminal Cases, using the appropriate instruction for violation of Section 832.05(3)....

...Because of the conflict which exists between our holding and the Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases we hereby certify to the Supreme Court as a matter of great public interest the following questions: 1. Is the Florida Standard Jury Instruction entitled “Worthless Check — Obtaining Property F.S. 832.05(3)”, set forth on pages 203 and 204 of the Second Edition, defective because it fails to instruct the jury that intent to defraud is an indispensable element of the crime of obtaining property in return for a worthless check? 2. In a prosecution for violation of Section 832.05(3), Florida Statutes (1975), where the trial court has instructed the jury in accordance with the Florida Standard Jury Instruction entitled “Worthless Check — Obtaining Property F.S. 832.05(3)”, as set forth on pages 203 and 204 of the Second Edition, is fundamental error committed when the trial court does not additionally instruct the jury that intent to defraud is an indispensable element of the crime of obtaining property in return for a worthless check? REVERSED and REMANDED....

...e check was the inducement for the furnishing of goods or services to the issuer. Helms v. State, 128 So.2d 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961). A worthless check tendered for payment of a pre-existing debt will sustain only the lesser misdemeanor proscribed by section 832.05(2), Florida Statutes (1989)....

...Evans, 388 So.2d 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Strickland concedes that the facts as presented would support a misdemeanor conviction. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and sentence with directions to correct the written documents to indicate a conviction under section 832.05(2), and to resentence accordingly. RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY and PARKER, JJ., concur. § 832.05(4), Fla.Stat.(1987).

...s guilty of nothing more than a misdemeanor, whereas the sentences imposed are justified only in the event he was lawfully convicted of a felony. It is apparent from an examination of the information that appellant was charged with violation of F.S. Section 832.05(3), F.S.A., which is as follows: “It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to obtain any services, goods, wares or other things of value by means of a check, draft or other written order upon any bank, person, firm or...

...m to be without substantial merit. The judgment appealed is reversed and the cause remanded for the entry of an appropriate judgment and sentence in accordance with the views herein expressed. STURGIS and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur. . F.S. Sec. 832.05(6), F.S.A. . F.S. Sec. 811.021(2), F.S.A. . F.S. Sec. 832.05(2), F.S.A....

...Marrero still needs a forum in which to resolve his vigorous complaint. This court is not the proper forum. Mr. Marrero may find relief through a counterclaim in this forfeiture action or in a separate lawsuit. Dismissed. PARKER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur. . § 832.05, Fla.Stat....

...ehicle described above but in no event more than 30 days after sale. The collecting bank granted immediate credit. Each draft was subsequently dishonored by the payor bank because the titles were not attached. Hedglin was then charged with violating § 832.05(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1987)....

...After the trial court denied his motion to dismiss, Hedglin entered a plea of nolo contendere to three counts of depositing items with the intent to defraud. The plea was entered pursuant to an agreement allowing him to appeal the denial of his motion. The sole question on appeal is the construction of § 832.05(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1987), which provides: (3) CASHING OR DEPOSITING ITEM WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD; PENALTY.— (a) It is unlawful for any person, by act or common scheme, to cash or deposit any item, as defined in s....

...2018-CF-100-AK); grand theft in violation of sections 812.014(1) and 812.014(2)(c) (case no. 2018-CF-443-AK); organized scheme to defraud in violation of section 817.034, and four counts of cashing or depositing item with intent to defraud in violation of section 832.05(3) (case no....

RYDER, Judge. Charles Roberts appeals his conviction of the crime of issuing a worthless check contravening Section 832.05(2), Florida Statutes (1977)....