¶1The state seeks certiorari review of an order of the circuit court granting Christine Urf’s motion to seal records. We find no departure from the essential requirements of law in the court’s agreement to seal its own records. See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 336 So.2d 93 (Fla.1976). However, we do agree that the court exceeded its authority in ordering the sealing by law enforcement agencies of arrest and criminal history records, because Urf, having been adjudged guilty of the offenses in question, did not qualify for such extraordinary relief. §§ 943.058(2) and 943.058(3), Fla.Stat. (1987). Accordingly the petition for writ of certiorari is granted in part and denied in part, and the circuit court is directed to correct its order of June 3, 1987, consistent with this opinion.
524 So. 2d 1118
524 So.2d 1118
13 Fla.L.Weekly 1176
State v. Urf
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided May 11, 1988
District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1988-05-11
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently January 1992
2 state decisions
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
“We find no departure from the essential requirements of law in the court's agreement to seal its own records. See e.g., Johnson v. State, 336 So.2d 93 (Fla. 1976). However, we do agree that the court exceeded its authority in ordering the sealing by law enforcement agencies of arrest and criminal history records, because Urf, having been adjudged guilty of the offenses in question, did not qualify for such extraordinary relief. §§ 943.058(2) and 943.058(3), Fla. Stat. (1987). Accordingly the petition for writ of certiorari is granted in part and denied in part....”
quoted by 1 later decision, including 593 So. 2d 282 - State v. Pena
Relies on 336 So. 2d 93 - Johnson v. State
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1988-05-11
View the full empirical analysis of this case →