SCOTT BAKER, 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.
Scott Baker appealed the denial of his petition to expunge criminal records related to a charge the State declined to pursue. The trial court denied the petition based on the nature of the charge and Baker's occupation at a car wash, reasoning that the public had a compelling interest in knowing the character of those with public contact, especially with children. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by relying on generalized reasoning not tailored to Baker's particular circumstances.
The trial court abused its discretion by denying the petition without a factual basis tailored to Baker's particular circumstances. Where a petitioner satisfies the statutory and rule requirements for expunction, the trial court must base its discretionary decision on the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the records at issue, not on generalized reasoning applicable to any person seeking such relief.
[1] Orders denying expunction of criminal records are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
[2] Satisfaction of statutory and rule requirements for expunction creates a presumption in favor of expunction.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Where the petitioner has satisfied the requirements of the relevant rules and statutes, it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to deny the petition without a factual basis.”
Establishes that satisfaction of statutory requirements creates a presumption favoring expunction and requires a factual basis for denial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScott Baker was charged with a crime that the State elected not to pursue. He worked at a car wash where he had contact with the public. The trial cou…
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
Scott Baker, Appellant, appeals an order denying his petition to expunge his criminal history records related to a charge that the State elected not to pursue. He argues that the trial court’s reasons for denying his petition were not sufficiently related to the particular facts and circumstances of his case. We agree, and therefore, reverse and remand for reconsideration.
After a hearing at which no evidence was adduced, the trial court entered an order denying Appellant’s petition based on the nature of the charge and the nature of Appellant’s occupation. According to the order, Appellant works at a car wash where he has contact with the public, “obviously including children.” The trial court opined that the public’s compelling interest in knowing the character of those who provide a service to the community, particularly the children of the community, justified denial of the petition.
Orders denying expunction of criminal records are reviewed for abuse of discretion. VFD v. State, 19 So.3d 1172, 1174 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Section 943.0585, Florida Statutes (2009), governs the expunction of non-judicial criminal history records, and Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.692 and 3.989 govern petitions to seal or expunge court records. See Anderson v. State, 692 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (explaining that the legislature has control over non-judicial criminal history records but not court records). Although these authorities do not confer a right to expunction on the petitioner, satisfaction of their requirements does create a presumption in favor of ex-punction. Anderson, 692 So.2d at 252 (cited with approval in Oymayan v. State, 765 So.2d 812, 815 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)). Where the petitioner has satisfied the requirements of the relevant rules and statutes, it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to deny the petition without a factual basis. VFD, 19 So.3d at 1175; see also Harman v. State, 12 So.3d 898, 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (finding an abuse of discretion where the trial court denied a petition to expunge based on the prosecu*1149tor’s unsupported representations concerning events in the defendant’s past).
In deciding whether to grant a motion to expunge, a trial court must 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.” 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 (holding that the trial court abused its discretion in relying on the prosecutor’s argument that knowledge of the defendant’s criminal history may prove useful in a future case, as that reasoning would be applicable to any case).
Here, the trial court based its denial on the nature of the charge and the assumption that Appellant’s occupation would place him in contact with children. Despite the trial court’s finding that Appellant would obviously have contact with children through his occupation, there was no evidence indicating that Appellant works in a position of trust, that he has more contact with children than the average person, or that his job places him in the position of having unsupervised contact with children. Cfi Gonzalez v. State, 565 So.2d 410, 411-12 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (holding that it was proper to deny ex-punction of a firefighter’s record where he pled nolo contendere to the unlawful purchase of cocaine, given that his occupation required him to be ready “at any given moment ... to render assistance in a life threatening situation”). Therefore, the trial court’s reasoning was insufficiently related to the particular facts and circumstances of this case, and the denial of the petition was an abuse of discretion based on the record before us. As a result, we reverse and remand for reconsideration of the petition.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
VAN NORTWICK, LEWIS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shanks v. State, 82 So. 3d 1226 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…s records.” Cole v. State, 941 So. 2d 549, 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. See Light v. State, 80 So. 3d 414 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Hobbs v. State, 80 So. 3d 415 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Baker v. State, 53 So. 3d 1147, 1148-49 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); VFD v. State, 19 So. 3d 1172, 1175 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Reversed and remanded. WETHERELL and RAY, JJ., concur.…
-
Simone Maxwell v. State, 185 So. 3d 702 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…e was ‘a good reason for denial based on the facts and circumstances of the individual case.’ ” Orozco v. State, 920 So. 2d 208, 208-09 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (quoting Oymayan v. State, 765 So. 2d 812, 814 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)); see also Baker v. State, 53 So. 3d 1147, 1148, (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (“Where the petitioner has satisfied the requirements of the relevant rules and statutes, it is. an abuse of discretion for the trial court to deny the petition without a factual basis.”). A petition to expunge is complet…
-
Granville Williams v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)…cifically asked the court to consider the defendant committed the offense under duress or domination of another individual. That is entirely consistent with his more detailed explanation of the events giving rise to his charges. In Baker v. State, 53 So. 3d 1147 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), the First District addressed section 943.0585, which authorizes expungement or sealing of criminal history records. The First District held that while that statute does not create a right to the expunction of any criminal histor…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- 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)
- VFD v. State, 19 So. 3d 1172 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Cole v. State, 941 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Gonzalez v. State, 565 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Cohee v. State, 765 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Harout Oymayan v. State, 765 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Harman v. State, 12 So. 3d 898 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)