M.G. v. State, 260 So. 3d 1094

M.G. lived under the control of a human trafficker (Valdes) from 2007; she was coerced, drugged, and forced into prostitution and to recruit others.
In 2010 M.G. was arrested and charged with multiple offenses including kidnapping, sex trafficking, and deriving support from prostitution; she later pleaded guilty to sex trafficking, conspiracy, and deriving support, and the kidnapping charge was nolle prossed.
After completing her sentence and cooperating with the State against Valdes, M.G. petitioned under Fla. Stat. § 943.0583 (Human Trafficking Victim Expunction Statute) to vacate and expunge her criminal history records arising from offenses committed while she was a trafficking victim.
The trial court granted expunction as to most charges but denied expunction of records related to the kidnapping charge, concluding the statute’s exclusion barred expunction for any offense listed in Fla. Stat. § 775.084(1)(b)1.
M.G. appealed, arguing the statutory exclusion should apply only to convictions and thus did not bar expungement of the kidnapping records because she was never convicted of kidnapping.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 943.0583(3)’s exclusion for "any offense listed in § 775.084(1)(b)1." bars expunction of records related to kidnapping when petitioner was not convicted of kidnapping	M.G.: exclusion applies only to listed offenses of which the petitioner was convicted; because she was not convicted of kidnapping, the exclusion doesn't apply	State: the exclusion refers to the list of enumerated offenses in § 775.084(1)(b)1. regardless of conviction status, so kidnapping is excluded	Court: Affirmed trial court; plain language unambiguously excludes expunction for offenses listed in § 775.084(1)(b)1., including kidnapping, even if no conviction occurred

Kasischke v. State, 991 So.2d 803 (Fla. 2008) (de novo review applies to statutory interpretation)
Daniels v. Florida Dep't of Health, 898 So.2d 61 (Fla. 2005) (courts must first look to plain statutory language)
Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665 (Fla. 1992) (no judicial interpretation when statute is plain and unambiguous)
State v. Chubbuck, 141 So.3d 1163 (Fla. 2014) (legislative drafting choices inform statutory construction)
Nicoll v. Baker, 668 So.2d 989 (Fla. 1996) (courts must apply statutes as written; cannot rewrite legislation)