Johnson v. State, 46672
| Decision Date | 21 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 46672,46672 |
| Citation | 336 So.2d 93 |
| Parties | James Randolph JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Clinton A. Curtis, Woolfolk, Myers, Curtis, Craig & Crews, Lake Wales, and Jack T. Edmund, Bartow, for appellant.
Harold S. Richmond and Richard L. Wilson, Asst. State Attys., for appellee.
This cause is before us on an appeal from the Leon County Circuit Court. The trial court denied Appellant's motion to expunge, declaring Chapter 74--206, Laws of Florida, 1 to be unconstitutional. This Court has jurisdiction of the direct appeal under Article V, Section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution.
The facts of the case are as follows.
Appellant was arrested in Tallahassee on December 6, 1968; on January 16, 1969, Appellee filed an information against him, charging possession of marijuana. Appellant's motion to suppress items seized at the time of the search was granted; subsequently, Appellee nol-prossed the information against Appellant. Pursuant to Chapter 74--206, Laws of Florida 1974, on September 11, 1974, Appellant filed him Motion to Expunge Record, by which he sought an order 'to expunge all official records relating to (his) arrest. . . .' Although originally the State Attorney filed a reply to Appellant's motion stating that 'the State has no objection' thereto, after inquiry by the court as to possible constitutional defects, the State Attorney subsequently opposed the motion both by brief and oral argument.
Chapter 74--206, Laws of Florida 1974, provides, in part, as follows:
The lower court found that 'the conclusion is inescapable' that the Legislature intended the word 'expunge,' as used in that statute, to mean to destroy or obliterate, to annihilate physically, to strike out wholly. 2
Furthermore, the court stated:
'By the statute under consideration, it was the obvious intent of the legislature to eliminate all public records relating to the cases of those persons coming within its terms, so that no inquiring person could ascertain that these defendants had even been the subject of criminal prosecutions. . . .'
Inasmuch as '(t)he judicial department of government has the inherent power and duty to keep records of its proceedings' and since '(m)any situations arise in which the records of court proceedings are essential in the determining of the rights of people,' the court found that 'Chapter 74--206 is invalid insofar as it attempts to require courts to destroy records of their judicial acts.' It is from this holding that the instant appeal is brought.
As was said in State ex rel. Harrington v. Genung: 3
Clearly, the Legislature has the power to enact substantive law, 4 and it is the duty of the courts to enforce such substantive law where constitutional. Likewise, the Constitution establishes judicial power in the court system and vests this Court with the power of administration of the court system, including the establishment of judicial rules of practice and procedure; while such rules may be repealed by a general law enacted by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature, the power to initiate them rests in this Court. 5
We recognize the value of the expungement statute to society and its innate fairness to people improperly accused. We also recognize that from time immemorial courts have exercised their discretion, on their own initiative or upon motion of the parties, to seal their records from public view wherein the ends of justice may be served. Further, we recognize our duty to construe a statute in such a way as to achieve the legislative intent subject to constitutional restriction on legislative authority. To permit a law to stand wherein the Legislature requires the destructon of judicial records would permit an unconstitutional encroachment by the legislative branch on the procedural responsibilities granted exclusively t this Court.
Therefore, to achieve the legislative purpose in this case we hold that to the extent that Chapter 74--206, Laws of Florida 1974, grants a substantive right to a defendant, the statute is valid; and we find that the law is substantive to the degree that it protects Appellants from having his record left open for public inspection in the Criminal Division of the Circuit Court. To achieve the legislative intent under the unique circumstances of the instant case without violating the Constitution, we direct the learned trial judge to seal Appellant's record and to retain it sealed subject to the power of the court for good cause shown to open it under conditions wherein the ends of justice might require it. If a portion of the record is to be preserved anywhere in state government, the logical place for preserving the actual proceedings is in the court, with such record being made available on a confidential basis to the Department of Law Enforcement, rather than having it left solely with the latter agency.
Nevertheless, insofar as Chapter 74--206, Laws of Florida 1974, attempts to establish procedure for the accomplishment of this new, substantive right, we find nad so hold that it is an encroachment upon the judicial function and, therefore, unconstitutional to that degree. Consequently, the Court will consider adoption of a rule to effectuate the legislative intent by requiring the sealing of court records of first offenders found innocent or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Hubbard
...denial of access to criminal court records not unconstitutional where convictions are ordered "expunged"). But see Johnson v. State, 336 So.2d 93 (Fla.1976) (expungement statute invalid insofar as it required judiciary to destroy court records).86 Compare Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S.......
-
Hlad v. State
...authorizing the destruction of court records would violate the constitutional separation of powers doctrine. See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 336 So.2d 93 (Fla.1976). The records may have been destroyed pursuant to Florida Judicial Administrative Rule 2.075(d)(3) or 48 Caudle distinguishes Burg......
-
New Bedford Standard-Times Pub. Co. v. Clerk of Third Dist. Court of Bristol, STANDARD-TIMES
...Underwood v. State, 529 S.W.2d 45, 47 (Tenn.1975) (expungement after successful defense of criminal charge). Cf. Johnson v. State, 336 So.2d 93, 95 (Fla.1976) (expungement statute limited in effect to sealing of record); Times-Call Publishing Co. v. Wingfield, 159 Colo. 172, 177, 410 P.2d 5......
-
Abdool v. Bondi
...courts are subject to the oversight and control of the Supreme Court of Florida, rather than the legislative branch); Johnson v. State, 336 So.2d 93, 95 (Fla.1976) (invalidating a statute that mandated the destruction of judicial records). Thus, without a clear indication in the Florida Con......
-
Criminal law
...together with the court file and retain the same in a non-public index, subject to further order of the court (see Johnson v. State , 336 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1976)); and • in multi-defendant cases, make a certified copy of the contents of the court file that will be sealed. Thereafter, all refe......