THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DWIGHT WILLIAMS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appeals the dismissal of a concealed firearm charge against Williams. The trial court found the pistol was not concealed as a matter of law, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the State's traverse established a prima facie case that the weapon was initially hidden and only became visible after the defendant's movement.
The court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case, holding that the State's sworn traverse established a prima facie case of guilt. The traverse's factual allegations that the officer observed the pistol come from under the seat and come into view indicated the firearm was initially concealed from ordinary sight.
[1] A sworn traverse that specifically denies the averments in a motion to dismiss and affirmatively sets forth facts establishing a prima facie case of guilt mandates the de…
[2] In a motion to dismiss under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4), all inferences are resolved against the defendant and in favor of the State.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the officer then observed a .22 caliber pistol come from under the back of the driver's seat and come into view”
Establishes that the pistol was initially hidden and only became visible after the defendant's action, supporting concealment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA police officer observed Williams reach under the front of the driver's seat of a vehicle and push an unknown object back. After this movement, the o…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Concealed Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
The trial court, finding that the pistol was not concealed within the meaning of Section 790.001(2), Florida Statutes (1979),1 granted Williams’ motion to dismiss filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4). We reverse the order of dismissal and remand the cause with directions to reinstate the information.
The State’s sworn traverse specifically denied the averments in Williams’ motion that the “pistol was sticking out from under the front seat” and “was visible to the officer,” and affirmatively set forth that “after the defendant reached under the front of the driver’s seat and pushed an unknown object back, [t]he officer then observed a .22 caliber pistol come from under the back of the driver’s seat and come into view at the rear .... ” (emphasis supplied). This traverse manifestly established a pri-ma facie case of guilt against the defendant.2 State v. Riocabo, 372 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); State v. Sellers, 281 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). See also Oliver v. State, 393 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Compare Powell v. State, 369 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Christian v. State, 303 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); State v. Day, 301 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974) (in all of which the weapon was immediately visible). Under these circumstances, denial of the motion to dismiss was mandated. Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.190(d); State v. Merritt, 394 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); State v. Whitehead, 353 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
Reversed.
. This section defines a concealed firearm as “any firearm ... when the same is carried on or about a person in such a manner as to conceal said firearm from the ordinary sight of another person.”
. It is axiomatic that in every prosecution for carrying a concealed firearm there has come a point in time when the firearm became visible. The distinction in the cases lies in whether the weapon would be immediately visible to ordinary sight (not concealed) or later becomes disclosed (concealed). In the present case, one can readily infer from the confluence of the statements in the traverse that the object was at first “unknown,” and that the officer saw it “come from under” and “come into view,” that the firearm was not initially visible to the officer by the use of ordinary sight. In a motion under Rule 3.190(c)(4), all inferences are resolved against the defendant and in favor of the State. State v. Upton, 392 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Horacio Johnson, 518 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Ensor v. State, 403 So. 2d 349 (Fla.1981); Powell v. State, 369 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); State v. Williams, 395 So. 2d 287, 288 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Upton, 392 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- State v. Riocabo, 372 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- State v. Elmus R. Sellers, 281 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- State v. DAY, 301 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- State v. Pita, 393 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Christian v. State, 303 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Gallant v. Rape, 369 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Powell v. State, 369 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- State v. Merritt, 394 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- State v. Calzena Whitehead, 353 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)