MARION TOM BUSS, 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.
The court held that carrying a concealed firearm in one's own home is not an offense.
Appellant pled guilty to carrying a concealed firearm. The firearm was carried in appellant's own home. Appellant relied on precedent holding carrying…
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 Assault With Intent To Commit Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
SPECTOR, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant was charged by a two-count information with assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree and unlawfully carrying a concealed firearm. Appellant pled guilty to the offense of carrying a concealed firearm and was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment with appropriate credit for time served in the county jail awaiting trial. The more serious crime, assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree, which was charged in the first count was nolle prossed by the State in consideration of appellant’s guilty plea to the concealed firearm charge.
By this appeal, it is contended that the trial court erroneously accepted a guilty plea to the carrying a concealed firearm count inasmuch as the record reflects that the firearm in question was being carried in appellant’s own home. Appellant relies on French v. State, 279 So. 2d 317 (Fla.App.1973), and Peoples v. State, 287 So. 2d 63 (Fla.1973). In French, supra, the court held that it was not an offense to carry a concealed firearm in one’s own home. In Peoples, supra, the court held it was not an offense to carry a concealed firearm while seated upon a bench immediately outside one’s own place of business.
In the case at bar, the record indicates that appellant Russ committed the purportedly criminal conduct in his own home. It goes without question then that applying the principle of French v. State and Peoples v. State, referred to above, appellant’s conviction cannot stand and must be reversed.
We express no opinion, as the point is not now before us, as to the propriety of appellant being tried on the charge which was nolle prossed.
Reversed.
BOYER and McCORD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Hanigan, 312 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…onviction, the Fourth District said it was anomalous to determine that a person exempted from licensing requirements 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 i…
-
Cates v. State, 408 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…recognized that the section 790.25(3) exceptions are applicable to section 790.01. Peoples v. State, 287 So. 2d 63 (Fla.1973); Facion v. State, 290 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); French v. State, 279 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). See Russ v. State, 304 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). In addition, if the exceptions do apply, questions remain as to the meaning of securely encased. What if the console containing appellant’s gun had been locked? Is a gun in a zippered or partially zippered case securely encased?…
-
McCARRON v. State, 185 So. 3d 666 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…of business without violating the law. See § 790.25(3)(n); Peoples v. State, 287 So. 2d 63, 66-67 (Fla.1973); Santiago v. State, 77 So. 3d 874, 876-77 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Brook v. State, 999 So. 2d 1093, 1096-97 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Russ v. State, 304 So. 2d 481, 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). Mr. McCarron’s possession of the knife in his pants pocket in the immediate vicinity of his residence was arguably a violation of section 790.23(1)(a) — if at all— only because he was a convicted felon. Cf. Williams v. Stat…
Authorities Cited
- Cataldo v. Rader & Assocs., 287 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 1973)
- French v. State, 279 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)