Johnny Lee Ransom v. Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary, Department of Offender Rehabilitation

Fifth Circuit

Johnny Lee Ransom v. Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary, Department of Offender Rehabilitation

553 F.2d 900, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 13026

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 8, 1977

Docket76-4064

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 553 F.2d 900 (Johnny Lee Ransom v. Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary, Department of Offender Rehabilitation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Johnny Lee Ransom v. Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary, Department of Offender Rehabilitation, 553 F.2d 900, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 13026 (5th Cir. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

553 F.2d 900, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 13026, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnny-lee-ransom-v-louie-l-wainwright-secretary-department-of-offender-ca5-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack