Court Opinion

ID: 9649715
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:07:04.059275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:21.275492
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                        Opinion filed August 23, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                            No. 3D22-1650
                        Lower Tribunal No. 22-202
                          ________________

                             E.M., a juvenile,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                           The State of Florida,
                                Appellee.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Orlando A.
Prescott, Judge.

      Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Andrew Stanton, Special
Assistant Public Defender, and Cassidy Heitman, Certified Legal Intern, for
appellant.

      Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Christina L. Dominguez,
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      Affirmed. See § 790.001(3), Fla. Stat. (2022) (“‘Concealed firearm’

means any firearm . . . which is carried on or about a person in such a manner

as to conceal the firearm from the ordinary sight of another person”); Ensor

v. State, 403 So. 2d 349, 354 (Fla. 1981) (“For a firearm to be concealed, it

must be (1) on or about the person and (2) hidden from the ordinary sight of

another person. The term ‘on or about the person’ means physically on the

person or readily accessible to him. . . . The term ‘ordinary sight of another

person’ means the casual and ordinary observation of another in the normal

associations of life”); State v. Riocabo, 372 So. 2d 126, 126 (Fla. 3d DCA

1979) (holding that a firearm may still be “concealed” under section 790.001

where firearm is “accidentally, partially exposed so that an arresting officer

may see a portion of the firearm”). See also M.R. v. State, 101 So. 3d 389,

392 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (holding that, while a trial court’s denial of a

motion for judgment of dismissal is reviewed de novo “facts adduced from

the evidence are taken as true and ‘all reasonable inferences that may be

drawn from such evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the

State’”) (citations omitted).

                                      2