Johnny Lee Ransom v. Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary, Department of Offender Rehabilitation
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- John H. Baer, Individually and D/B/A Liberty Guns v. The City of Wauwatosa (7th Cir. 1983)
- Frear v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)
- Prieto v. Metropolitan Dade County (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 1989)
- Prieto v. Metropolitan Dade County (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 1989)
- United States v. Pasquale Matassini, A/K/A Pat Matassini, and Robert E. Rodriguez (5th Cir. 1978)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Johnny Lee Ransom, a state prisoner, appeals from the district court’s denial without a hearing of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He asserts that his conviction of violating Fla.Stat.Ann. § 790.23 (1976) infringed rights guaranteed him by the Federal Constitution. His primary contention is that Section 790.23 is void for vagueness. This argument is without merit. In order to survive constitutional challenge on this ground, a statute need only provide “the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited.” Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 2298-99, 33 L.Ed.2d 222, 227 (1972); Dreske v. Holt, 536 F.2d 105, 107 (5th Cir. 1976). Section 790.23 meets this standard.
In his reply brief, the petitioner suggests that the statute somehow deprives him of the presumption of innocence. We perceive no basis for this allegation. If it is an attempt to assert that the statute infringes equal protection by creating an invidious class — felons—who are forbidden to carry firearms, the argument is without merit. The district court’s decision is
AFFIRMED.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.