Okay, it seems from my reading of subsection 1, if a person has EVER (since the age of 18) been convicted of “a criminal offense” be that jaywalking or murder, then he can’t have his arrest record expungement, even for a subsequent arrest.
So, why the need for subsection 2?
In other words, if I am 100 years old and I was convicted of assault in 1928, and then arrested for simple battery in 2007, would I be eligible for an expungement of my 2007 arrest?
I know, you aren’t my lawyer, I’m not your client, etc. It just seems that sections 1 and 2 don’t make sense…
Section 2 is about crimes in the petition itself, or stemming from them; one can imagine a petitioner trying to claim there’s a loophole there:
“Your honor, my client has no prior convictions – he was only convicted of the murder to which the petition pertains! Surely my worthy colleague would not imply that this statute ties your hands in such a case?”
Section 1 seems to cover it, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t better covered by section 2.
Mmm. Section 1 states “prior to the date on which the petition is filed…”. So if you were trying to expunge the arrest that led to your murder conviction, then section 1 applies nicely, and section 2 still seems overkill.
What does “adjudicated guilty” mean? What if a person pled guilty himself and no “adjudication” was necessarily?
I know I’m splitting hairs, but I guess I’m flabbergasted because Florida seems to be strict in this regard.
Does it means what it seems: Would the man in my op be ineligible for an expungement?
Typically, when a person pleads guilty to a charge a judge says “I find you guilty based on your plea” that would probably satisfy the “adjudicated guilty” requirement.
A person may plead guilty but a judge does the adjudicating.