Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

839 So. 2d 832

Docket No. 4D02-1982.

Steinmann v. State

Bruce STEINMANN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2003-03-05

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently September 2018

9 state decisions

Relies on 490 So. 2d 94 - Glosson v. Solomon · 658 So. 2d 1090 - Boykin v. Garrison

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2003-03-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1John Olea of Lubin, Volker and Olea, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

¶2Charlie Crist, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. Bettendorf, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4Appellant appeals the trial court's decision to seal his records instead of granting his petition to expunge his criminal history record under section 943.0585, Florida Statutes (2002). We reverse.

¶5Any person who complies with the requirements of section 943.0585 may petition the court for the expunction of his/her criminal history record. However, "[t]his section does not confer any right to the expunction of any criminal history record, and any request for expunction of a criminal history record may be denied at the sole discretion of the court." Id. (Emphasis added). It is error for the trial court to refuse or fail to exercise its discretion. See Boykin v. Garrison,658 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Glosson v. Solomon,490 So.2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). The record in this case indicates that the trial court did not exercise any discretion in deciding not to expunge appellant's record. Therefore, we reverse and remand for the trial court to exercise its discretion as to whether appellant's record should be expunged.

¶6Reverse and Remand.

¶7POLEN, C.J., KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

/839/so2d/832 · .json · Public domain