ROBERT EUGENE RANDALL, 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.
Robert Eugene Randall was convicted of providing false information on a firearm transaction form by falsely stating he had no prior domestic violence battery conviction. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction, holding that the statutory scheme did not authorize the pawnshop or FDLE to require disclosure of criminal history on the form, making prosecution based on the false answer unconstitutional.
The court reversed Randall's conviction, holding that prosecution based on a false answer to an unauthorized question regarding criminal history on the firearm transaction form is unconstitutional because the legislature did not require disclosure of criminal background information when authorizing the FDLE to promulgate the form.
[1] A prosecution based on an allegedly false answer to a question on a firearm transaction form is unconstitutional if the legislature did not require that information to be…
[2] A statute authorizing a state agency to promulgate a form does not implicitly authorize the agency to require disclosure of information not mandated by the legislature.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Because the legislature did not require that this information be furnished when it authorized the FDLE to promulgate the form, a prosecution based on an allegedly false answer to this unauthorized question is unconstitutional.”
Establishes the core holding that prosecution cannot be based on answers to questions the legislature did not authorize to be asked on the form.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRandall regularly pawned a rifle he owned to raise cash, paying monthly fees to prevent its sale. When redeeming his rifle, he was required to complet…
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 Statutory Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Robert Eugene Randall appeals his conviction for a violation of section 790.065(12), Florida Statutes (1999),1 by providing a false answer on a firearm transaction form promulgated by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. We reverse.
The circumstances of this case are the following: Whenever Mr. Randall needed some extra cash he pawned a rifle he owned, paying a monthly fee to cover the interest that accrued so the pawnshop would not sell his rifle before he could redeem it himself. On the most recent occasion when he returned to the pawnshop to redeem the rifle, he was required to complete the form for firearm transactions promulgated by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement pursuant to section 790.065, even though he was redeeming his own property. The pawnshop clerk explained to him that the form was required due to a new law. He completed the form and answered untruthfully that he had not previously been convicted of a domestic violence battery. During the background check that the sheriffs office performs on all persons who complete these forms, Mr. Randall’s name was listed as one who was not approved to purchase a firearm. As a result, Mr. Randall was arrested, tried, and found guilty of providing false firearm transaction information contrary to the statute. He received a sentence of sixty days’ probation.
Mr. Randall raises three issues for our consideration: first, that as the owner of the gun at all pertinent times, he was not a “potential buyer or transferee” of the firearm and, thus, did not fall under the statute’s proscription; second, that he could not be constitutionally prosecuted based on allegedly false answers to this “prior crime” question on the form; and, third, that he was denied a fair trial when the prosecutor questioned him about a previous incarceration when he had stipulated to the prior conviction that resulted in that incarceration to avoid discussion of it in front of the jury. Although the first and third issues present interesting legal questions, we need not reach either because the second issue is dispositive.
This court has previously answered the dispositive issue in State v. Watso, 788 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), and concluded that the statutory scheme did not require a potential buyer to disclose his or her criminal background on this form. Because the legislature did not require that this information be furnished when it authorized the FDLE to promulgate the form, a prosecution based on an allegedly false answer to this unauthorized question is unconstitutional.
Because Mr. Randall’s prosecution is constitutionally forbidden by Watso, we reverse the conviction and remand with instructions to discharge Mr. Randall.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
FULMER, A.C.J., and GREEN and CASANUEVA, JJ„ Concur. . Section 790.065(12), Florida Statutes (1999), provides: “Any potential buyer or transferee who willfully and knowingly provides false information or false or fraudulent identification commits a felony of the third degree punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.”