BRUCE STEINMANN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Discretion Of The Court cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals 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 (2002). 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.
POLEN, C.J., KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mitchell v. State, 958 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…aintain control over it by independent proof of Charles Mitchell’s actual knowledge, or evidence of incriminating statements and circumstances other than mere location of the substance. This language is a modification of a quote from J.M. v. State, 839 So. 2d 832, 834 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (quoting Dupree v. State, 705 So. 2d 90, 94 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)). A defendant in a criminal case is entitled to have the jury instructed on the rules of law applicable to his theory of defense if there is any evidence to su…
-
State v. Barrow, 91 So. 3d 826 (Fla. 2012)…suggested that the trial court inform the jury that it could request a read-back. . We do not decide whether the trial judge’s statement, "I don’t do read backs” was a refusal to exercise discretion which constituted error. See Steinmann v. State, 839 So. 2d 832, 832 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) ("It is error for [*836] the trial court to refuse or fail to exercise its discretion.”). In addition, we also refrain from deciding whether the corpus delicti of murder was established in the instant case, but do note that…
-
Jiles v. State, 984 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…the plainly visible presence of the marijuana in the vehicle door beside Jiles was sufficient to establish that Jiles knew of the presence of the marijuana. This is not a case in which the drugs were concealed within a container. See J.M. v. State, 839 So. 2d 832, 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Jiles relies principally on Hargrove v. State, 928 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), and Cruz v. State, 744 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Hargrove is inapposite because the court there determined that the evidence was insuf…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities 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)