Pulcini v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pulcini v. State

949 So. 2d 1150, 2007 WL 601943

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 28, 2007

DocketNo. 3D06-1936

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 949 So. 2d 1150 (Pulcini 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

Pulcini v. State, 949 So. 2d 1150, 2007 WL 601943 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Sherri L. Puleini, (“Puleini”), appeals the trial court’s order denying her petition to seal her criminal record pursuant to section 943.059, Florida Statutes (2004). We reverse.

In this case, where Puleini met all of the requirements of section 943.059, the trial court abused its discretion in denying her petition. The trial court’s stated reason, that the public's interest in having access to Pulcini’s criminal history record outweighs Puleini’s interest in sealing her record, is, on its own, insufficient. Although we recognize the trial court has discretion, a trial court’s discretion is not unfettered. Therefore, a trial court may deny the petition if there is good reason for the denial based on the facts and circumstances of the individual case. See Anderson v. State, 692 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Here, the record shows only counsel’s argument, filings, and Pulci-ni’s nolo contendere plea, which are not sufficient reasons to support the trial court’s denial. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to grant Pul-cini’s petition to seal her criminal record.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

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

PER CURIAM.

Sherri L. Puleini, (“Puleini”), appeals the trial court’s order denying her petition to seal her criminal record pursuant to section 943.059, Florida Statutes (2004). We reverse.

In this case, where Puleini met all of the requirements of section 943.059, the trial court abused its discretion in denying her petition. The trial court’s stated reason, that the public's interest in having access to Pulcini’s criminal history record outweighs Puleini’s interest in sealing her record, is, on its own, insufficient. Although we recognize the trial court has discretion, a trial court’s discretion is not unfettered. Therefore, a trial court may deny the petition if there is good reason for the denial based on the facts and circumstances of the individual case. See Anderson v. State, 692 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Here, the record shows only counsel’s argument, filings, and Pulci-ni’s nolo contendere plea, which are not sufficient reasons to support the trial court’s denial. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to grant Pul-cini’s petition to seal her criminal record.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

949 So. 2d 1150, 2007 WL 601943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pulcini-v-state-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack