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
