From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ford v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
May 18, 2007
954 So. 2d 672 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

Opinion

No. 4D05-3773.

April 11, 2007. Rehearing Denied May 18, 2007.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Cynthia Imperato, Judge; L.T. Case No. 04-20602 CF10A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Margaret Good-Earnest, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and David M. Schultz, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.


Appellant was convicted of uttering a false instrument and grand theft for having deposited a forged check from a pension fund, of which he was not a beneficiary, and obtaining cash in return. We affirm appellant's convictions, rejecting his contention that the trial court erred in admitting the duplicate forged check. We conclude that the check was admissible under section 90.953, Florida Statutes, and that none of the exceptions within the statute applied. See Lowery v. State, 402 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). He also argues that the court erred in allowing an investigator for the pension fund to testify that he had searched the pension fund records and did not find appellant's name in the list of beneficiaries, claiming that such evidence is hearsay. As the supreme court noted in Garcia v. State, 644 So.2d 59, 62 (Fla. 1994), it is doubtful that such testimony is hearsay at all. In this case, even if it were inadmissible hearsay, its admission was harmless.

Finally, he claims that his sentence was vindictive and imposed for rejecting an earlier plea offer. However, having reviewed the criteria set forth in Wilson v. State, 845 So.2d 142, 156 (Fla. 2003), to evaluate whether a sentence is vindictive, we conclude that the criteria have not been met in this case. The trial judge did not initiate or participate in the negotiations; the judge never implied that his sentence would hinge on his choice to go to trial; and there were other reasons for the disparity between the plea offer and the ultimate sentence, not the least of which was appellant's prior criminal history.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Ford v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
May 18, 2007
954 So. 2d 672 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)
Case details for

Ford v. State

Case Details

Full title:Dennis FORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: May 18, 2007

Citations

954 So. 2d 672 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)