STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
J.C.H., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the sealing of the records but remanded for the trial court to make requisite constitutional findings.
[1] A trial court's ruling on a petition to seal records is governed by the law in effect at the time the original motion to seal was filed, even if the statute is subsequent…
[2] A denial of a motion to seal records without prejudice preserves the defendant's opportunity to renew the motion under the law applicable at the time of the initial filin…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJ.C.H.'s probation was terminated early, and he petitioned to seal his records. The trial court initially favored sealing but delayed the decision. A …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Statutory Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Acting Chief Judge.
The state has appealed from a trial court ruling that granted J.C.H.’s petition to seal his court and criminal history records. We affirm the sealing of the records but remand for the trial court to make requisite constitutional findings.
This case was initiated in 1990, when J.C.H.’s probation had been terminated five years early. The trial judge at that time indicated a willingness to seal the defendant’s records under the statute then in effect, section 943.058, Florida Statutes (1989), but she was persuaded to delay until the entire probationary period had passed. Thus, she denied the motion to seal records without prejudice. The defendant then renewed his motion in 1995. Only at the request of the state did the defendant file an additional motion. Earlier in 1995, when the subsequent motion was filed, the statute had been amended; the new statute, section 943.059, Florida Statutes (1995), did not permit sealing of records when the defendant had been charged with a violation of section 800.04, Florida Statutes. On this ground the state contended that the 1995 motion should be denied.
We disagree. From the unique procedural history of this case it is clear that the trial court initially favored granting the petition; the denial without prejudice left open the opportunity for the defendant to renew the same motion. Thus, the law in effect at the time his original motion was filed should govern, see State v. Greenberg, 564 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), rev. denied, 576 So. 2d 287 (Fla.1991), and the subsequent bar to sealing when the defendant has been charged with section 800.04 is not applicable in this case.
The court should have included in its order its findings that the constitutional test for sealing pertained to the defendant, as required in State v. P.D.A (Sealed), 618 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Accordingly, we remand this case to give the trial court the opportunity to do so. See State v. M.C. (Sealed), 661 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); State v. R.P.H. (Sealed), 618 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
PARKER and FULMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Loadholtz v. Robert W. Andrews, M.D., 855 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…mut of medical problems and specialties and to eliminate those experts who are no longer actively involved in medicine. The statute does not exclude a specialist in one field from testifying against a specialist in another field. Green v. Goldberg, 680 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (emphasis supplied). As was held before the Legislature added the five-year requirement, the “trial court may not always avoid this often difficult determination [as to sufficient training, experience, and knowledge] by rest…
-
Nicole and Doreen Feil v. Pollock, 98 So. 3d 160 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…v. Reeves, 97 So. 2d 18, 20 (Fla.1957). In making this assessment, a trial court must apply the definition of “abandoned” or “abandonment” in section 39.01(1), Florida Statutes, that was in effect at the time the petition was filed. State v. J.C.H., 680 So. 2d 606, 607 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); State v. Greenberg, 564 So. 2d 1176,1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Here, the trial court relied upon an earlier version of the statute (2008), one that was amended to address the degree of [*163] parental involvement necessary to…
Authorities Cited
- State v. P.D.A. (Sealed), 618 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- State v. Solomon David Greenberg, 564 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- State v. R.P.H. (Sealed), 618 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- State v. M.C. (Sealed), 661 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)