HAIM GUTKIND, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
A trial court errs by refusing or failing to exercise its discretion when deciding whether to expunge a criminal history record.
Appellant petitioned to expunge his criminal history record under section 943.0585, Florida Statutes. The trial court sealed the records instead of gr…
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 Expunction Of Criminal History Records cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Haim Gutkind, appeals from the trial court’s decision to seal his records instead of granting his petition to expunge his criminal history record under section 943.0585, Florida Statutes (1995). We reverse.
Any person who complies with the requirements of section 943.0585 may petition the court for the expunction of his/her criminal history record. However, “[t]his section does not confer any right to the expunction of any criminal history record, and any request for expunction of a criminal history record may be denied at the sole discretion of the court.” Id. (Emphasis added). It is error for the trial court to refuse or fail to exercise its discretion. See Boykin v. Garrison, 658 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Glosson v. Solomon, 490 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
The record in this case indicates that the trial court did not exercise any discretion in deciding not to expunge appellant’s record. Therefore, we reverse and remand for the trial court to exercise its discretion as to whether appellant’s record should be expunged.
REVERSE AND REMAND.
FARMER, STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
VFD v. State, 19 So. 3d 1172 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…future falls short of the exercise of discretion that the statute requires. See Steinmann v. State, 839 So. 2d 832, 832 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (holding failure to exercise discretion reversible error); Wells, 807 So. 2d at 207 (same); Gutkind v. State, 765 So. 2d 66, 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (same). The trial court abused its discretion by not hearing evidence and exercising its discretion based on the facts and circumstances of VFD’s case. The trial court was alerted to factual disputes, including whether a gun…
-
Yuri Sucart and Jose Gustavo Gomez v. Off. OF THE Comm'r, 129 So. 3d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…” Nader v. Fla. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 87 So. 3d 712, 721 (Fla.2012), reh’g denied (May 4, 2012). In certain circumstances, certiorari may be appropriate to review orders compelling discovery from non-parties. See Hill v. Doughty, 765 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (granting certiorari and quashing a discovery order entered against a non-party where there was “no evidence to support ... allegation of a relationship between the non-party petitioners and the judgment debtor”). The burden on…
Authorities Cited
- Glosson v. The Honorable Harold Solomon, 490 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Clover Boykin v. Honorable Edward A. Garrison, 658 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)