LONNIE B. FACION, 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.
Lonnie Facion challenged his conviction for carrying a concealed firearm, arguing he fell within a statutory exception for persons possessing arms "at his home or place of business." The court held that Facion, though arrested near his apartment in a common area of the complex, failed to demonstrate he was "at his home" within the meaning of the exemption, and affirmed his conviction.
Facion failed to bring himself within the statutory exemption because he was not in his own home but rather in a common area of the demised premises, and the facts did not support that he was "at his home" within the meaning of the statutory exemption.
[1] The statutory exception for possessing arms at one's home does not extend to common areas of leased premises.
[2] A person is not considered "at his home" for purposes of the concealed firearm exception when stopped in a common area of an apartment building, even if near their apartm…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A person possessing arms at his home or place of business.”
The statutory exemption language from F.S. § 790.25(3)(n) that Facion argued protected his conduct.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn officer responded to a complaint that a man had been firing a gun near an apartment complex. The officer went to the suspect's apartment, and while…
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 In Pari Materia Statutory Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Judge.
Appellant Lonnie B. Facion pleaded nolo contendere to a charge of carrying a concealed firearm, preserving his right to appeal the issue of his exception under F.S. § 790.25(3) (n) FjS.A.1
At the hearing on Facion’s motion to change his plea of not guilty, the testimony of the arresting officer was taken. The officer testified that he responded to a call from a citizen complaining that a man had been firing a gun in the air in the vicinity of her house. The woman who reported the incident gave him a description of the man, known to her as Lonnie, and pointed out the apartment where he lived. The officer went to the apartment, was invited in by Lonnie’s wife and told that Lonnie was not there. As he was leaving the apartment he saw a man who answered the description coming out of an alley around the apartment building about fifteen feet from the front door. When the man was approximately five feet from the door to his apartment, the officer stopped him and he stepped up from the sidewalk on a porch-way which runs the length of the four-unit apartment building. The officer asked him if his name was Lonnie, and at the same time noticed a bulge in his right front pocket. The officer immediately patted him down, removed the weapon and placed him under arrest for carrying a concealed firearm in violation of F.S. § 790.01(2) F. S.A. Facion contends that since he was arrested approximately five feet from the door to his rented apartment in an area in common on the leased premises, that he was “at his home” and came within the exception to the statute relating to unlawful carrying of concealed firearms.
Sub-section 3 of § 790.25 provides that the licensing requirements and prohibitions of F.S. §§ 790.05 and 790.06 F.S.A. shall not apply to (n) “A person possessing arms at his home or place of business.”
In French v. State, Fla.App.1973, 279 So. 2d 317, the Fourth District Court of Appeal concluded that F.S. § 790.25 F.S.A. must be read in pari materia with F.S. §§ 790.01, 790.05 and 790.06 F.S.A., and under this construction the carrying of a concealed firearm in one’s own home is not prohibited by F.S. § 790.01(2) F.S.A. Facion was not in his own home, but was in a common area of the demised premises. If the Florida statute had exempted persons in their own homes or on their own premises, we would have no difficulty in holding that Facion did not come within the statutory exemption. See White v. United States, D.C.App.1971, 283 A. 2d 21; Wilson v. State, Tex. Cr.App.1967, 418 S.W. 2d 687; Clark v. State, 1887, 49 Ark. 174, 4 S.W. 658.
In this case, however, the officer first observed Facion, who answered th(e description of the man reported to have been firing a gun, walking on the public sidewalk about fifteen feet from his apartment. When the officer stopped him he stepped up on the apartment complex porch-way. The officer and Facion were facing each other on the sidewalk and Facion was not out of the officer’s sight from the time the officer first saw him. There would not have been an opportunity for Facion to pick up and conceal the firearm between that time and the time of the arrest. Under these circumstances, we hold that Facion has failed to bring himself within the statutory exemption. This does not mean, however, that we are holding that Facion was “at his home” within the meaning of the statutory exemption at the place where he was actually arrested.
Affirmed.
MANN, C. J., and PIERCE, WILLIAM C., (Ret.), concur. . State v. Ashby, Fla.1971, 245 So. 2d 225; Chesebrough v. State, Fla.1971, 255 So. 2d 675; Andersen v. State, Fla.1973, 274 So. 2d 228.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Hanigan, 312 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…uirements may be convicted for failing to have a license. Under similar circumstances, the First District in Russ v. State, Fla.App.lst, 1974, 304 So. 2d 481, reversed appellant’s conviction. Finally, this court in Facion v. State, Fla.App.2d, 1974, 290 So. 2d 75, recognized the statutory exception, but refused to apply it because appellant was first observed on a public sidewalk. Thus, the courts have interpreted § 790.25(3)(n) as providing an exception to § 790.01 even though subsection (3) only refers to…
-
Brant v. State, 349 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…e case as to this charge as Officer Buhrmaster testified that defendant was in a public hallway when he observed the defendant withdraw his gun from underneath his shirt. Thus, defendant does not fall within the above exception. See Facion v. State, 290 So. 2d 75 (Fla.2d DCA 1974). Affirmed.…
-
McNAIR v. State, 354 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…e carried the firearm at his own home pursuant to Section 790.25(3)(n), Florida Statutes (1975). This argument is without merit as McNair was carrying the pistol on his person when he was about 30 to 35 feet from his apartment. See Facion v. State, 290 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Rash v. State, 331 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Ashby, 245 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1971)
- Chesebrough v. State, 255 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 1971)
- French v. State, 279 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Andersen v. State, 274 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1973)