J.F.T., A CHILD
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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's discretion to deny an expunction petition under section 943.0585, Florida Statutes, is not unfettered and requires the court to consider all facts and circumstances; denial based solely on the nature of the crime or the possibility of future criminal conduct is improper.
[1] A trial court's discretion to deny a petition for expunction of criminal history records under section 943.0585, Florida Statutes, is not unfettered and must be exercised…
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“Although section 943.0585 provides that 'any request for expunction of a criminal history record may be denied at the sole discretion of the court,' Florida courts have consistently held that such discretion is not unfettered.”
Court explaining the limits on trial court discretion in expunction cases
J.F.T., a child, was arrested in Marion County, Florida. The State filed a notice of no petition and did not dispute J.F.T.'s eligibility for expuncti…
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
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
J.F.T., A CHILD, Appellant, Case No. 5D20-907
CORRECTED
v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed August 28, 2020 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County,
S. Sue Robbins, Judge.
Kathryn E. Bennett, of Law Office of William E. Ramputi, Ocala, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Roberts J. Bradford, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
J.F.T., a child, was arrested in Marion County, Florida. The State subsequently filed a notice of no petition, indicating its intent not to pursue the case. J.F.T. then filed a petition seeking to expunge his non-judicial criminal history records and the official court records relating to his arrest. As required by section 943.0585, Florida Statutes (2019),
2 and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.692,1 the petition was accompanied by a certificate of eligibility for expunction issued by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. The State opposed J.F.T.’s petition. Although it did not dispute J.F.T.’s eligibility for expunction, the State contended that the petition should be denied so that his records would be available in the event J.F.T. committed a crime in the future. In an unelaborated order, the trial court denied J.F.T.’s petition.
In Kanji v. State, 4 So. 3d 65 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009), we addressed an identical situation. In reversing the trial court’s order denying Kanji’s petition to expunge, we explained the trial court’s discretion, writing: Although section 943.0585 provides that “any request for expunction of a criminal history record may be denied at the sole discretion of the court,” Florida courts have consistently held that such 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 the arbitrary denial of expunction. Anderson, 692 So. 2d at 253. In exercising its discretion, the trial court must consider all the facts and circumstances and may not deny the petition based solely on the nature of the crime. See Cole; Godoy; Oymayan; Anderson.
Kanji, 4 So. 3d at 66–67.
The State concedes remand is necessary. Here, as in Kanji, we are unable to determine if the trial court properly exercised its discretion because no reason was given for the denial of J.F.T.’s petition. Accordingly, we remand the case to the trial court with
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.
ORFINGER, COHEN and TRAVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anderson v. State, 692 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Graham v. State, 845 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Cole v. State, 941 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Cohee v. State, 765 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Pulcini v. State, 949 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
- Zahir Kanji v. State, 4 So. 3d 65 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)
- Pacu Rivera-Rivera v. State, 65 So. 3d 1160 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)