Case ID: so2d_335/html/0001-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. ENGLAND, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Frank ISOM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 48665.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    June 30, 1976.
    Edward L. Harvey, Asst. Public Defender; for appellant.
    Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Dirk v. State, 305 So.2d 187 (Fla.1974). Cf. State v. Bryan, 290 So.2d 482 (Fla.1974); Rigot v. Bucci, 245 So.2d 51 (Fla.1971), Rule 3.390, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.

OVERTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS, BOYD, SUNDBERG and HAT-CHETT, JJ., concur.

ENGLAND, J., dissents with an opinion.

ENGLAND, J.,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. This case raises the constitutional validity of Section 832.05 (6), Florida Statutes (1975), the “bad check” statute which facilitates merchants’ check collections by permitting criminal arrest and possible conviction based on mere presentment of a dishonored check and without any proof of a criminal intent. Justice Ervin thoroughly analyzed the due process infirmity of this provision in Dirk v. State, 305 So.2d 187, 188-190 (Fla.1974) (dissent). His analysis was correct in 1974, and it is equally cogent now. Cf. Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 95 S.Ct. 1881, 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975).