In support of his Motion for Judgment of Acquittal and on appeal, appellant relies upon two of this Court's opinions where we reversed the appellants' forgery convictions because the State failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove that the appellants committed forgery as to stolen checks. See Barge v. State, 747 So.2d 481, 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); see also Clark v. State, 737 So.2d 634, 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). If the State had proceeded only on the forgery charge, instead of then averring that appellant was a principal to such charge, both Barge andClark would be controlling because the State failed to present any evidence that appellant, himself, counterfeited the check. However, because the State asserted, subsequent to the close of its case, that appellant was a principal to forgery, the question then becomes whether or not the State offered sufficient evidence to prove that appellant was indeed a principal.

Our review of the record indicates that the evidence presented by the State was sufficient to prove that the nine checks were forged, and that Barge uttered them, knowing that they were forged. While the evidence was sufficient to prove that appellant uttered the nine forged checks and committed grand theft, the evidence was insufficient to prove that appellant forged any of the nine checks. See Clark v. State, 737 So.2d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). We therefore reverse the forgery convictions, but affirm in all other respects.