Hernandez v. State, 73--309
| Decision Date | 22 January 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--309,73--309 |
| Citation | 289 So.2d 16 |
| Parties | Sergio Mario HERNANDEZ, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Alvin E. Entin, Miami, and Lewis S. Kimler, Miami Beach, Manuel W. James, Key West, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Stephen Rosin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before PEARSON, CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.
By information the appellant was charged with possession of a concealed weapon (in violation of § 790.01 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (in violation of § 790.23(1). On trial before a jury he was acquitted of the former and convicted of the latter offense, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for an indeterminate period of six months to a maximum of five years. This appeal ensued.
The appellant contends the evidence established that subsequent to his prior conviction and prior to the filing of the information in this case his civil rights were restored, making the present charge inapplicable to him. The appellant also contends the court erred in admitting into evidence the firearm discovered on his person.
The statute under which the defendant was charged and convicted exempts those convicted felons whose civil rights have been restored. In the prosecution of the offense the state is not required to prove the non-existence of the exception. It is a matter of defense, to be established by the defendant. Benitez v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 520; Ferrell v. State, 45 Fla. 26, 34 So.220.
The defendant testified that his civil rights had been restored. No documentary evidence of such restoration was produced. Upon the prior conviction of the defendant for a felony in 1965 he had been placed on probation for five years. A parole officer who dealt with him during that time testified he had discussed with the defendant the matter of restoration of civil rights, and recommended he apply for a pardon; that an application made by the defendant for a pardon had been denied; that the parole officer had no record of restoration of the defendant's civil rights, of which, had it occurred, he or his office normally would have been notified. On that evidence the jury could, and no doubt did find the exception did not apply here.
Appellant argues the court erred in overruling his objection to the introduction by the state of the gun into evidence, contending it was obtained on a search made upon an unlawful...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Matassini
...in a true recidivist proceeding. Id. at 162. Compare Davis with Carlesi v. New York, discussed at note 5 supra. In Hernandez v. State, 289 So.2d 16 (Fla.App., 3rd Dist. 1974), the court affirmed a conviction in a case in which defendant's application for a pardon had been denied and no docu......
-
R.C. v. Dep't of Agric. & Consumer Servs.
...of Agriculture and Consumer Services, at https://www.fdacs.gov/content/download/7444/file/reciprocity-list.pdf.2 Hernandez v. State , 289 So. 2d 16, 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (finding that section 790.23 "exempts those convicted felons whose civil rights have been restored. In the prosecution o......
-
Mackey v. State
...that it was not bound by the decision in Regalado because the Third District Court of Appeal had previously held in Hernandez v. State, 289 So.2d 16, 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), that an arrest for the offense of possession of a concealed weapon was proper where the officer observed a firearm par......
-
Mackey v. State
...that the individual was carrying a concealed weapon, justifying not merely a pat-down, but a search.” Id. at 139. In Hernandez v. State, 289 So.2d 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), the defendant was arrested after an officer saw a portion of a firearm partially protruding from a pocket in his trousers......