French v. StateFrench v. State
Appellant-defendant, William Howard French, was charged by information in count one thereof with unlawfully entering and remaining in a building for the purpose of prostitution, lewdness or assignation,
Turning first to the conviction for carrying a concealed firearm, French does not contest the fact that when he was arrested, he was carrying a pistol in his trouser pocket, i.e., he admits that he was carrying a concealed firearm. French does contend, however, that he proved a statutory defense1 to the charged crime as he was in his home at the time of carrying the concealed firearm. Motion for judgment of acquittal was made at trial and denied. A request was made to instruct the jury that French had a right to possess a firearm in his own home, which request was similarly denied. French was convicted by the jury, adjudged guilty by the court and sentence imposed. This appeal followed.
The primary thrust of this appeal is whether a person who carries a concealed firearm in his own home violates
To answer the above posed question we must analyze
Having set the basic statutory framework, we now turn to
Having set forth all applicable statutory provisions, it now becomes necessary to apply them to the facts in the case sub judice. Appellant was charged with violation of
Accordingly, to give
Turning now to count one of the information, we note the conviction thereunder to be a misdemeanor, and for the purpose of review jurisdiction lies in the Circuit Court of Orange County, Florida. Accordingly, the judgment and sentence entered on count two of the information is vacated and set aside, and the cause remanded to the trial court with instructions to discharge the defendant therefrom.
As to count one of the information, the cause is transferred to the Circuit Court of Orange County, Florida, for review.
Reversed and remanded, with instructions; and transferred.
WHITE, JOSEPH S., (Ret.), Associate Judge, concurs.
REED, C.J., dissents in part, concurs in part, with opinion.
REED, Chief Judge (dissenting in part; concurring in part).
I would affirm the conviction under Count 2. I believe the majority opinion, to the extent it holds that
I agree with the majority‘s treatment of Count 1.