KIM WELLS, 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.
Kim Wells appealed an order summarily denying her petition to expunge and seal criminal records under Florida law. The appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial court denied the petition without holding a hearing or providing any stated reason, despite Wells meeting the statutory and procedural requirements and the State conceding substantial compliance.
A trial court must afford a meaningful hearing on a petition to expunge and seal criminal records that is facially sufficient, substantially complies with statutory requirements, and is unopposed by the State. The court does not conclude that Wells is automatically entitled to expunction, but rather that she is entitled to a hearing on the merits of her allegations.
[1] A petition for expunction and sealing of criminal records that complies with statutory and rule requirements is entitled to a meaningful hearing.
[2] A trial court's denial of a petition for expunction and sealing of criminal records, when the petition is facially sufficient and unopposed by the state, warrants appella…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Because Wells's petition and supporting papers comply with the requirements of the statutes and rules regarding the expunction and sealing of criminal and court records, we question the denial of a hearing on the merits of Wells's allegations.”
The core holding that a facially compliant petition requires a hearing rather than summary denial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWells filed a petition to expunge and seal certain criminal records pursuant to section 943.0585, Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Criminal Proce…
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 Sealing Of Criminal Records cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, R. B„ J.
Kim Wells appeals an order summarily denying her petition to expunge and seal certain criminal records pursuant to section 943.0585, Florida Statutes (2000), and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.692. In its response filed below, the State con ceded that Wells had substantially complied with section 943.0585 and Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.692 and 3.989, advised the court of its discretion to grant or deny Wells’s petition pursuant to section 943.0585, and asked that an evidentiary hearing be set on the matter.1 Shortly thereafter, the trial court denied the petition without a hearing or any stated reason.
Because Wells’s petition and supporting papers comply with the requirements of the statutes and rules regarding the ex-punction and sealing of criminal and court records, we question the denial of a ‘hearing on the merits of Wells’s allegations. We do not conclude that Wells is entitled to the relief she seeks, only that the court must afford her a meaningful hearing. Smith v. State, 614 So. 2d 525, 528 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).2
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
GRIFFIN and SAWAYA, JJ., concur. . While the record does not support Wells’s contention that she orally requested a hearing on her petition, we believe that once the court was presented with a proper petition for sealing and expunction, unopposed by the State, the matter should have been set for hearing, as requested by the State, and not summarily denied. Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.692(a) and 3.590(c) contemplate that a hearing will be afforded when requested. See Smith v. State, 614 So. 2d 525, 528 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).
. We recognize that section 943.0585, Florida Statutes (2000) provides: "This 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.” Orders denying expungement of a criminal history record are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. See Oymayan v. State, 765 So. 2d 812, 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). It would be difficult for this court to review the trial court's order on the merits since the order simply said "denied.” Given that Wells’s petition was facially sufficient and not opposed by the State, the court’s denial of the petition is puzzling.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
VFD v. State, 19 So. 3d 1172 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…n 943.0585 makes clear, however, that it “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.” See Wells v. State, 807 So. 2d 206, 207 n. 2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (quoting statute). “[W]here a petitioner has satisfied all of the statutory requirements, section 943.0585 gives the trial court the discretion to deny expunction ... ‘if there is a good reason for denial based on the f…
-
Orozco v. State, 920 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…of the individual case.” See Oymayan v. State, 765 So. 2d 812, 814 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Consequently, the trial court should have held a hearing to consider all of the facts and circumstances of appellant’s case. Id. at 812; see also Wells v. State, 807 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (holding that where appellant substantially complied with the requirements of the expungement rules and statute, he was entitled to a meaningful hearing on the merits). We, therefore, reverse and remand for further proceedings co…
-
Zahir Kanji v. State, 4 So. 3d 65 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…ition based solely on the nature of the crime. See Cole; Godoy; Oymayan; Anderson. Here, we are unable to determine if the trial court properly exercised its discretion because no reason was given for the denial of Kanji’s petition. Wells v. State, 807 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Accordingly, we remand the case to the trial court with instructions to either grant Kanji’s petition or provide the reason(s), based on all the facts and circumstances, for denying the petition. REVERSED and REMANDED. PALMER,…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cohee v. State, 765 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Harout Oymayan v. State, 765 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Aurelian Smith, Jr. v. State, 614 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)