Barge v. State, 747 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
Barge v. State, 747 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. S.A. (fladistctapp, 2012-09-12)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" State v. S.A.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. McFarland, 747 So.2d 481, 482 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (“This court recently construed this rule to mean that, when a defendant files a notice of expiration of speedy trial, a hearing must be held within five days of the date of the filing of the notice, and then the defendant must be brought to trial within ten days of the hearing held on the notice.”).
cited Cited "see" State v. Hill
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. McFarland, 747 So.2d 481 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); State v. Edwards, 528 So.2d 120 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988).
cited Cited "see" Watkins v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
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).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State of Florida v. S.A., a child (2×)
Fla. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence medium
P. 3.191(p)(3); see also McFarland, 747 So.2d at 483 (holding that the State “was not required to bring [the defendant] to trial within fifteen days of the filing of his motion” for discharge but was, instead, required “to bring [him] to trial within ten days of the date of the hearing on the motion”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Charles Edward BARGE
v.
STATE of Florida
No. 1D99-1024.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Jan 7, 2000.
747 So. 2d 481
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender; P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant., Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; Lori D. Stith and L. Michael Billmeier, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Davis, Joanos, Miner.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Charles Edward Barge, was found guilty by a jury of nine counts of forgery, nine counts of uttering forgeries, and one count of grand theft. Barge appeals the convictions, claiming, among other issues, that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he forged the checks, and that he therefore could not be convicted of forgery, uttering forgeries and grand theft. 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.

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.

JOANOS, MINER and DAVIS, JJ., CONCUR.