DAVID EARL CHARLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
David Earl Charley appealed his convictions for carrying a concealed firearm and eight counts of petit theft. The court reversed his concealed firearm conviction, finding the state failed to prove the starter pistol found in his pocket qualified as a "firearm" under Florida law, because it could not expel a projectile or be readily converted to do so.
The court held that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain the conviction for carrying a concealed firearm because the state failed to prove that the starter pistol could either expel a projectile or be readily converted to do so. The conviction and accompanying 10-year habitual felony offender sentence were reversed.
[1] A starter pistol is not considered a "firearm" under Florida law unless the state proves it can expel a projectile or be readily converted to do so.
[2] Evidence that a starter pistol's barrel was blocked by a metal plug and its chambers were blocked by metal pieces is insufficient to prove it can expel a projectile.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“any weapon (including a starter gun) which will, is designed to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile”
Definition of firearm under Florida Statutes Section 790.001(6), establishing the elements the state must prove
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA starter pistol was discovered in Charley's pocket at the time of his arrest. The pistol's barrel was substantially blocked by a metal plug, and each…
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 Petit Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
Appellant, David Earl Charley, raises five issues involving this criminal appeal from his convictions and sentences for one count of carrying a concealed firearm and eight counts of petit theft. We agree with appellant that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of carrying a concealed firearm, because the state failed to provide competent, substantial evidence that the starter pistol found in appellant’s pocket was a “firearm” as defined in Section 790.001(6), Florida Statutes (1989), and. therefore reverse on that point. We affirm the four remaining issues without further comment and agree that the evidence was legally sufficient to convict him for the petit theft offenses.
A starter pistol was discovered in appellant’s pocket at the time of his arrest, and he was subsequently charged with carrying a concealed firearm, in violation of Section 790.01(2), Florida Statutes (1989). The term “firearm” is defined as “any weapon (including a starter gun) which will, is designed to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile.” § 790.001(6), Fla.Stat. (1989). A starter pistol is designed to detonate small gunpowder explosives 1 or blanks,2 and therefore is not designed to fire a projectile. M.R.R. v. State, 411 So. 2d 983, 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Consequently, it was the state’s burden to prove that the starter gun could either expel a projectile, or be readily converted to do so. Id.
The barrel of the starter pistol at bar was substantially blocked by a metal plug, and each chamber of the pistol’s cylinder was blocked by a circular piece of metal formed inside the cylinder. The only other evidence submitted regarding the starter pistol was the testimony of Officer White, who stated that if one fired the gun, “it would probably blow up in your face.” Although he testified that “[y]ou could probably” put a bullet or cartridge in the cylinder, he admitted that he was not a firearms expert, and that he did not know whether the starter pistol could expel a projectile.
We hold that the above evidence is legally insufficient to sustain the conviction. See M.M. v. State, 391 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) (starter pistol that had a warped barrel with two bars in it could not fire a projectile, and because it could only be converted by an expert, it could not be considered a firearm), review denied, 411 So. 2d 384 (Fla.1981); Ridley v. State, 441 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (even if a drill had been present at the crime scene to unplug the starter pistol’s barrel, the gun did not qualify as a firearm, because it could not readily be converted to expel a projectile); Harpham v. State, 435 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (proofs were insufficient to show that starter gun with plugged barrel which required drilling in order to expel a projectile was a firearm within the meaning of section 790.001(6)).
Because the state has failed to prove an essential element of the crime, namely, that the weapon in question could either expel a projectile or be readily converted to do so, we reverse appellant’s conviction for carrying a concealed firearm and the 10-year habitual felony offender sentence imposed therefor with directions that he be discharged as to such offense.
AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part and REMANDED for further consistent proceedings.
SHIVERS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur. . Harpham v. State, 435 So. 2d 375, 376 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
. M.M. v. State, 391 So. 2d 366, 370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), review denied, 411 So. 2d 384 (Fla.1981).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Deangelo Andre Evans v. State, 758 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…e frame or receiver of any such weapon; any device; or any machine gun.... ” A starter pistol is not designed to expel a projectile. Thayer v. State, 609 So. 2d 150, 151 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), review denied, 618 So. 2d 211 (Fla.1993); Charley v. State, 590 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). As such, the State has the burden of proving that “the starter gun could either expel a projectile, or be readily converted to do so.” Charley, 590 So. 2d at 6. The only evidence that the State presented on the issue of whether…
-
Casais v. State, 204 So. 3d 969 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…00) (reversing the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal in a robbery with a weapon charge because the state failed to prove the “weapon” defendant used fell under the statutory definition of weapon); Charley v. State, 590 So. 2d 5, 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (finding that the trial court erred in denying a motion for judgment of acquittal for a charge of carrying a concealed firearm because “the state failed to provide competent, substantial evidence that the starter pistol found…
-
Thayer v. State, 609 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…er wielded a starter pistol during the robbery. There was a plug in the pistol and the trigger action did not work. Most courts have held that an unmodified starter gun does not [*151] meet the requirements of a firearm. See, e.g., Charley v. State, 590 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Ridley v. State, 441 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Morales v. State, 431 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). But see Nash v. State, 374 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). A starter gun generally is not designed to expel a projectile.…
Authorities Cited
- M. M. v. State, 391 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Goodwill Indus. OF S. Fla., Inc. v. Ne. Fire Ins. Co. of Pa., 411 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- M.R.R. v. State, 411 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Ridley v. State, 441 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Harpham v. State, 435 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)