LINCOLN BABUN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sealing Of Court Records cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State concedes, correctly, that the trial court erroneously applied section 943.058, Florida Statutes (1989), in denying a motion to expunge and seal court records showing that the movant was arrested and charged with a criminal offense. The statute, which prohibits the sealing of records in a completed case, does not apply where the charges are nolle prossed.1 Canter v. State, 448 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Accord Merritt v. State, 522 So. 2d 93, 94-95 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Thomas v. State, 513 So. 2d 163, 164-65 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 519 So. 2d 988 (Fla.1987); Williamson v. State, 510 So. 2d 1052, 1054-55 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
. A nolle prosequi is a formal entry on the record by the prosecutor declaring that there will be no further prosecution of either the entire case, some of the counts, or some of the defendants. 1 Fla.Jur.2d Actions § 105 (1991).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Clifton, 905 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…ed or an indictment will not be sought. Id. at 208-09; see also Wilson v. Renfroe, 91 So. 2d 857, 859 (Fla.1956) (“The words 'nolle prosequi’ are a Latin expression which translated literally mean 'to be unwilling to prosecute.' ”); Babun v. State, 576 So. 2d 377, 377 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) ("A nolle prosequi is a formal entry on the record by the prosecutor declaring that there will be no further prosecution of either the entire case, some of the counts, or some of the defendants.”) (citation omitted); Sta…
-
Foster v. State, 861 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…ON? Even though the Coney opinion had not changed on rehearing, the court held: "When we state that a ruling is prospective only, the ruling does not take effect until the time for rehearing has run.” 698 So. 2d at 1205. But see Scarpillo v. State, 576 So. 2d 377, 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). [*437] Our supreme court decided, in Dixon v. State, 730 So. 2d 265 (Fla.1999), that the effective date of State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla.1995), was the date the mandate ■ issued there, answering affirmatively this…
-
Collins v. State, 577 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…nt’s reliance upon Ca-rawan v. State, 515 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1987), is misplaced. The effect of the statutory amendment is to return the law of double jeopardy to its pre-Carawan state, when the Blockburger1 analysis controlled. See Scarpillo v. State, 576 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). A comparison of the statutory elements of armed robbery and grand theft reveal that each requires an element that the other does not, suggesting that the legislature intended dual convictions. See § 812.014, Fla.Stat. (Supp.1988…
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
- Williamson v. State, 510 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Canter v. State, 448 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Thomas v. State, 513 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Merritt v. State, 522 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)