Hunt v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hunt v. State

670 So. 2d 1180, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3772, 1996 WL 149052

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 3, 1996

DocketNo. 95-1440

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 670 So. 2d 1180 (Hunt v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hunt v. State, 670 So. 2d 1180, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3772, 1996 WL 149052 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Mark Hunt appeals the denial of his petition to seal the record in case 89-43414B pursuant to section 943.059, Florida Statutes (1995). Hunt argues that because his conviction for driving under the influence came after his crime in case 89-43414B, the trial judge should not have considered the DUI conviction in ruling on Hunt’s petition. We disagree. As the state points out, the DUI conviction came before the petition. Therefore, under section 943.059, the conviction was properly considered by the trial judge. At the time of the Judge’s ruling on the petition, Hunt had “previously been adjudicated guilty of a criminal offense.... ” § 943.059(l)(b)l, Fla.Stat. (1995). Moreover, as the statute clearly provides, “any request for sealing a criminal history record may be denied at the sole discretion of the court.” § 943.059, Fla.Stat. (1995). Thus, the trial court had the discretion to deny the petition, even if Hunt had met the statutory criteria. Accordingly, the order under review is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Mark Hunt appeals the denial of his petition to seal the record in case 89-43414B pursuant to section 943.059, Florida Statutes (1995). Hunt argues that because his conviction for driving under the influence came after his crime in case 89-43414B, the trial judge should not have considered the DUI conviction in ruling on Hunt’s petition. We disagree. As the state points out, the DUI conviction came before the petition. Therefore, under section 943.059, the conviction was properly considered by the trial judge. At the time of the Judge’s ruling on the petition, Hunt had “previously been adjudicated guilty of a criminal offense.... ” § 943.059(l)(b)l, Fla.Stat. (1995). Moreover, as the statute clearly provides, “any request for sealing a criminal history record may be denied at the sole discretion of the court.” § 943.059, Fla.Stat. (1995). Thus, the trial court had the discretion to deny the petition, even if Hunt had met the statutory criteria. Accordingly, the order under review is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

670 So. 2d 1180, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3772, 1996 WL 149052, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunt-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack