STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
C.B., 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.
Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order sealing C.B.'s criminal record, holding that the two arrests lacked the required nexus and temporal relationship to qualify for sealing under section 943.059.
Two arrests do not satisfy the statutory requirement that additional arrests "directly relate" to an original arrest unless they stem from one criminal activity or episode and are temporally related or have a nexus between them.
[1] To satisfy section 943.059's requirement that additional arrests "directly relate" to an original arrest, the offenses must stem from one criminal activity or episode and…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 court may, at its sole discretion, order the sealing of a criminal history record pertaining to more than one arrest if the additional arrests directly relate to the original arrest.”
Statement of the statutory standard under section 943.059, Florida Statutes (2011).
C.B. sought to seal his criminal record stemming from two arrests. The trial court granted the petition, finding the arrests were directly related.…
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 Nexus Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
The State of Florida appeals an order granting appellee’s petition to seal his criminal record stemming from two arrests. Pursuant to section 943.059, Florida Statutes (2011), “[t]he court may, at its sole discretion, order the sealing of a criminal history record pertaining to more than one arrest if the additional arrests directly relate to the original arrest.” In State v. A.B.M., 742 So.2d 818, 820 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), the Second District construed this statutory language “to apply to additional arrests or charges that stem from one criminal activity or episode where the additional offenses are temporally related or there is some nexus between the offenses.” In State v. Dinkins, 794 So.2d 736, 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), the First District agreed that “the offenses must stem from one activity or episode, and in addition, the crimes must be temporally related or have a nexus between them.”
In the instant case, the trial court erred in finding the nexus element satisfied. The trial court improperly relied on the unsworn statements of appellee’s counsel, see State v. Silver, 723 So.2d 381, 382-83 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), and, even if appel-lee’s counsel’s statements were true, they still would not have satisfied the nexus element. Additionally, the offenses did not stem from one criminal activity or episode and were not temporally related. Because the offenses were not “directly relate[d],” we reverse and remand with directions to deny the petition.
Reversed and remanded.
MAY, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Silver, 723 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- State v. A.B.M., 742 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Venson T. Blocker v. State, 794 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- State v. Dinkins, 794 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)