Nixon Lazard v. State
229 So. 3d 439
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2003 Lazard was charged with aggravated child abuse but pled guilty to misdemeanor contributing to the dependency of a child; adjudication was withheld and he completed probation.
- In 2016 Lazard applied to FDLE for a certificate of eligibility to seal the 2003 criminal history under § 943.059(2).
- FDLE denied the certificate, stating the record "relates to" an act of domestic violence (a § 907.041 offense), which would make the record ineligible for sealing.
- Lazard filed a motion to compel FDLE to issue the certificate; the trial court denied the motion after reviewing the charging affidavit and finding the record related to domestic violence.
- The Fifth District reviewed statutory interpretation and reversed, holding FDLE should have issued the certificate because Lazard satisfied the § 943.059(2) prerequisites; determination whether the record "relates to" domestic violence is for the court after an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FDLE exceeded its authority by denying a certificate under § 943.059(2) because the record "relates to" domestic violence | Lazard: He met statutory prerequisites for a certificate; FDLE must issue it and any "relates to" inquiry is for the court on a petition to seal | FDLE: The record relates to an act of domestic violence, making the offense ineligible for sealing, so FDLE may deny the certificate | The court held FDLE erred; it must issue the certificate if the § 943.059(2) conditions are met; the "relates to" determination belongs to the trial court at an evidentiary hearing |
| Whether the factual determination that a record "relates to" an enumerated offense may be based solely on charging documents | Lazard: Charging documents alone are insufficient; court must consider facts and circumstances at an evidentiary hearing | FDLE/Trial Court: The charging affidavit/information supports finding the offense related to domestic violence | The court held the trial court erred by relying only on charging documents; an evidentiary hearing is required to consider all facts and circumstances before denying a sealing petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. State, 692 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA) (explaining sealing statute framework)
- Patrick v. Hess, 212 So. 3d 1039 (Fla.) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Crews v. State, 183 So. 3d 329 (Fla.) (legislative intent governs statutory construction)
- Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. Horowitch, 107 So. 3d 362 (Fla.) (start with plain meaning in statutory construction)
- State v. Mason, 979 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 5th DCA) (consider statute as a whole)
- Larimore v. State, 2 So. 3d 101 (Fla.) (construe related statutes harmoniously)
- J.A.H. v. State, 198 So. 3d 884 (Fla. 4th DCA) (trial court must hold evidentiary hearing and state reasons before denying sealing)
- Gotowala v. State, 184 So. 3d 568 (Fla. 4th DCA) (court must consider all facts and circumstances, not just charging allegations)
- Williams v. State, 879 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 3d DCA) (proper procedure to challenge certificate denial is mandamus; procedural defenses may be waived)
- State v. Harvill, 860 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 5th DCA) (challenge to certificate may be by mandamus or other appropriate action)