MARSHALL FISHER, 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 must conduct a hearing and state its reasons for denying a petition to expunge criminal records, even though the decision is discretionary.
[1] A trial court must conduct a hearing on a petition for expunction of criminal records when the petitioner has complied with statutory requirements.
[2] A trial court's discretion to deny an expunction petition must be based on the facts and circumstances of the individual case.
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 intelligenceMarshall Fisher appealed the summary denial of his petition to expunge criminal records. The trial court denied the petition stating only that expunct…
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 Expungement Of Records cases and more on FLexlaw
Marshall Fisher appeals the order summarily denying his petition to expunge certain criminal records pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.692 and section 943.0585, Florida Statutes (2007). The trial court’s order denying Fisher’s petition stated merely that section 943.0585 provides that expunction of criminal history records is at the discretion of the court. We reverse and remand for a hearing on Fisher’s petition.1
“A trial court has discretion to deny a petition ‘if there is a good reason for denial based on the facts and circumstances of the individual case.’ ” Harman v. State, 12 So.3d 898, 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (quoting Anderson v. State, 692 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)). Where a petitioner has complied with the requirements for seeking expunction of judicial records *1033and nonjudicial criminal history records set forth in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.692 and section 943.0585, Florida Statutes (2007), he is entitled to a hearing at which the trial court should consider all of the facts and circumstances of his case. See Orozco v. State, 920 So.2d 208 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Wells v. State, 807 So.2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Because the trial court did not conduct a hearing on Fisher’s petition and did not give a reason for denying his petition, we are unable to determine whether it properly exercised its discretion. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions that the trial court conduct a hearing on Fisher’s petition and, if it again denies the petition, enter an order setting forth its reasons.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
SILBERMAN and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kanji v. State (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2010)…discretion. Simply because a trial court has statutory authority to “exercise its discretion” does not in and of itself allow the denial of a petition without a finding of good reason(s) based on evidence presented at a hearing. See Fisher v. State, 20 So. 3d 1032 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2009). Also, the amended order was deficient in two other respects. Such an order must state specifically what the reason or reasons are which support the denial. It is not enough for the order to just to say, as this one did, that it…
Authorities Cited
- Anderson v. State, 692 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Wells v. State, 807 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Harman v. State, 12 So. 3d 898 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Orozco v. State, 920 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)