GERALD KENNETH COLE, 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.
Cole challenges a trial court's denial of his petition to seal criminal records following his acquittal on a lewd or lascivious molestation charge. The appellate court held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the petition without hearing evidence or providing any factual basis for the denial.
The trial court abused its discretion by denying the petition without a factual basis. The court must exercise its discretion based on consideration of all facts and circumstances of the individual case, and may only deny a petition to seal records if there is a good reason based on those facts and circumstances.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a petition to seal criminal records without hearing evidence or providing a factual basis for the denial.
[2] Denial of a petition to seal criminal records must be based on the facts and circumstances of the individual case, not solely on the nature of the charge.
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“the exercise of discretion contemplates that the court will make its decision based on consideration of all the facts and circumstances, rather than deciding the petition solely on the nature of the charge”
Establishes the legal standard for how courts must exercise discretion when ruling on petitions to seal records
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCole was charged with lewd or lascivious molestation and was acquitted following a jury trial. He then petitioned the trial court to seal his criminal…
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 Exercise Of Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
WOLF, J.
The appellant challenges an order denying his petition to seal criminal records. He claims the trial court abused its discretion by denying his petition to seal. We agree and hold that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the appellant’s petition to seal without hearing evidence on the issue or providing a reason based on the facts and circumstances for its denial.
The appellant was charged with lewd or lascivious molestation. Following a jury trial, he was acquitted of the charge. The appellant petitioned the court to have his record sealed pursuant to section 943.059, Florida Statutes (2005). The court held a hearing on the appellant’s petition. The appellant asserts, and the State concedes, that no evidence was introduced at the hearing. Furthermore, the trial court’s order did not state any factual basis for denying the appellant’s petition. The order provided:
The court having heard arguments of the State Attorney and of counsel for defense, and being fully advised in the premises, it is thereupon ordered and adjudged that the aforesaid motion shall be and the same is hereby denied. Done and ordered in open court at Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, this 25th Day of May 2005.
As evidenced by the order above and the State’s concession, the trial court did not exercise its discretion based upon factors other than the offense for which the appellant was acquitted pursuant to section 943.059, Florida Statutes. Godoy v. State, 845 So. 2d 1016, 1017 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (“the exercise of discretion contemplates that the court will make its decision based on consideration of all the facts and circumstances, rather than deciding the petition solely on the nature of the charge”) (citing Anderson v. State, 692 So. 2d 250, 254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)) (holding that the petition was not properly denied where the trial court’s stated reason for denying the petition was that the defendant was afforded a break in the criminal justice system because he received a withhold of adjudication and early termination of probation). See also State v. D.H.W., 686 So. 2d 1331, 1336 (Fla.1996) (holding that, in reviewing the petition, the court is to weigh the policy of public access to records against the long-standing public policy of providing a second chance to criminal defendants who have not been adjudicated guilty); Johnson v. State, 336 So. 2d 93, 95 (Fla. 1976) (finding a petition may be denied by the trial court only if there is a good reason based on the facts and circumstances of the individual case); Oymayan v. State, 765 So. 2d 812, 814 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (concluding the sole fact that the defendant committed a series of criminal acts rather than an isolated, single incident is an insufficient reason to preclude ex-pungement of the records).
Without adducing evidence at the hearing or stating any reason for denying the appellant’s request in its order, it appears the trial court had no factual basis to support the denial of the appellant’s request to seal his records. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by not basing its decision on the facts and circumstances of the appellant’s case. Accordingly, we remand the case to the trial court with instructions to either grant the appellant’s petition or provide the reason, based on all the facts and circumstances, for denying the petition.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
PADOVANO and THOMAS, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
VFD v. State, 19 So. 3d 1172 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…. 2d 250, 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)). In the absence of evidence presented at the hearing to support the prosecutor’s representations, the trial court had no specific factual basis to support the denial of VFD’s petition to expunge. See Cole v. State, 941 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), and cases cited therein. See also Harman, 12 So. 3d at 899 (holding trial court abused its discretion in denying petition to expunge based on a prior offense because “there was no evidence presented at the hearing to support thi…
-
Baker v. State, 53 So. 3d 1147 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…dicated guilty.” State v. D.H.W., 686 So. 2d 1331, 1336 (Fla.1996). The court’s discretion must be exercised based on the particular facts and circumstances surrounding the records at issue, and not solely on the nature of the charge. Cole v. State, 941 So. 2d 549, 550 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (citing Godoy v. State, 845 So. 2d 1016, 1017 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)). It is improper to deny a petition for expunction based on facts that would be applicable to any person seeking such relief. See VFD, 19 So. 3d at 1175 (holdi…
-
Zahir Kanji v. State, 4 So. 3d 65 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…ction of a criminal history record may be denied at the sole discretion of the court,” Florida courts have consistently held that such [*67] discretion is not unfettered. See, e.g., S.L.P. v. State, 949 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Cole v. State, 941 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Godoy v. State, 845 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Oymayan v. State, 765 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Anderson v. State, 692 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). The words “sole discretion” as used in this section do not permit th…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Johnson v. State, 336 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1976)
- Anderson v. State, 692 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- State v. D.H.W., 686 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 1996)
- Graham v. State, 845 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Cohee v. State, 765 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Harout Oymayan v. State, 765 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)