Case Name: Henry DIRK, Appellant, STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1974-05-29
Citations: 305 So. 2d 187
Docket Number: No. 44585
Parties: Henry DIRK, Appellant, STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: ADKINS, C. J., and BOYD and Mc-CAIN, J J., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 305
Pages: 187–191

Head Matter:
Henry DIRK, Appellant, STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 44585.
Supreme Court of Florida.
May 29, 1974.
Robert E. Jagger, Public Defender, and Jeffrey L. Myers, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Richard C. Booth and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
Robert F. Williams, Miami, and Thomas E. Norman, Jr., Tallahassee, for Florida Legal Services, Inc., as amicus curiae.

Opinion:
ROBERTS, Justice.
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. More particularly, appellant was charged with obtaining currency and merchandise of the value of $75.27 from a Publix Super Market by making and delivering a bank check for which he did not have sufficient funds in the bank, with knowledge that he had insufficient funds. Attacking the constitutionality of this statute, he filed a motion to dismiss the information filed against him. The trial court entered an order denying the motion to dismiss and upholding the constitutional validity of the questioned statute. Appellant then pled nolo contend-ere 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.
We find no reason to recede from our former decisions and the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, in Snyder v. State, 196 So.2d 217 (Fla.App.1967), upholding the validity of this statute against constitutional attacks as those now presented by appellant. Shargaa v. State, 84 So.2d 42 (Fla.1955); Ennis v. State, 95 So.2d 20 (Fla.1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 868, 78 S.Ct. 117, 2 L.Ed.2d 74. See also, McQuagge v. 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; 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.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, C. J., and BOYD and Mc-CAIN, J J., 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.
. Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837, 93 S.Ct. 2357, 37 L.Ed. 380 (1973) ; Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398, 90 S.Ct. 642, 24 L.Ed.2d 610 (1970) ; Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 23 L.Ed.2d 57 (1969).