Once again, I cannot say it enough - if you live in Florida and have an interest in firearms, weapons or self defense acquire and maintain a concealed carry permit! Read attorney Jon Gutmacher's latest blog entry: Hannum v State - CCF What Went Wrong. The actual @nd DCA opinion reversing the sentence can be read >here< (requires Adobe Acrobat / .pdf file). Hannum's 2006 booking info. This is from the day of the initial arrest. Hannum's 2007 booking info. This would be from the day he was convicted in court and held pending transport to Dept of Corrections. Hannum's release info from Dept of Corrections. Although the trial court's sentence of 24 months in prison was overturned and remanded for a new sentencing trial by the 2nd DCA Mr. Hannum has already been in custody since September 18, 2007 (at Pinellas County Jail, where he was held until for a month until October 16th, 2007 when he was transferred to DOC) through May 29th, 2009. So Mr. Hannum has been locked up for the better part of 23 months (although DOC will only reflect 22 months since 1 month was in county jail). Having a 24 month sentence overturned after you've already served 22-23 months is a rather Pyrrhic victory. The FELONY conviction for carrying a concealed firearm still stands, so Mr. Hannum will forever be a convicted felon. No more firearms. Mandatory registration with the Sheriff of any county in Florida he moves to, and a major impact on his employability. I'll also point out that this conviction and sentence took place after the effective date of Florida's so-called "Stand Your Ground" law. Reading the DCA's opinion reveals that Mr. Hannum was threatened, left the area to go to apartment so he could call 911 and arm himself, then he returned to the confrontation. Mr. Hannum was arrested and convicted despite having told the 911 operator he had a gun and telling the responding LEO he had a gun - and by all accounts having had the gun out & pointed at the other party for some amount of time. The arrest was based on the LEO's statement that Mr. Hannum's shirt covered the derringer at the time of contact. Mr. Hannum disputed this, but in this "he said / she said" situation the original trial court went with the LEO's statement.