Can a Judge Deny Your Request to Seal Your Record Simply Because Adjudication was Withheld?
In the case of Anderson v. State of Florida, the relevant facts are as follows:
In 1993, Mr. Anderson pled no contest to charges of grand theft and aggravated stalking in connection with an incident in which he grabbed a former girlfriend’s purse and ran away. The purse was recovered and no violence or threat of violence was involved. The judge withheld adjudication and sentenced defendant to two-and-one-half years on probation along with counseling and restitution.
Anderson had no prior criminal record, and he had a responsible job. After completing all of his probation requirements early, Anderson’s probation was successfully terminated after just one year and eleven months.
Anderson then filed a petition with the court to seal his criminal-history record. He obtained the required certificate of eligibility from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. However, the trial judge denied Anderson’s petition, so Anderson appealed to Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal.
The appellate court disagreed with the trial judge and ruled instead that Anderson’s petition should have been granted. The court of appeals noted that the reasons given by the trial judge for denying Anderson’s petition was that Anderson had already received a break from the criminal justice system when adjudication was withheld in his case and when his probation was terminated early.
However, the appellate court did not think that these reasons were sufficient to deny Anderson’s petition because:
1. This was a first offense as well as a nonviolent crime, so it was not unusual for the trial judge to have withheld adjudication.
2. The fact that Anderson did so well on probation that the judge decided to successfully terminate his probation should have been a factor operating in favor of sealing his record rather than denying it.
3. Although Anderson’s charges were serious, the trial judge should have based his decision on all of the relevant facts and circumstances rather than on just the nature of the charges.
