DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

EDWARD GOTOWALA,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D14-2663

[January 20, 2016]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Matthew I. Destry, Judge; L.T. Case No. 09-18317 

CF10A.

Gary Kollin of Gary Kollin, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard 

Valuntas, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

LEVINE, J. 

In Gotowala v. State, 162 So. 3d 33 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), we reversed 

because the lower court summarily denied Gotowala’s petition to seal his 

criminal records. We instructed the trial court to conduct an evidentiary 

hearing or provide written reasons as to why it was denying the petition.

On remand, the lower court again denied Gotowala’s petition. It did 

not conduct an evidentiary hearing. Instead, it relied on the facts to which 

Gotowala pled, which were set forth in a law enforcement officer’s probable 

cause affidavit. The lower court’s reason for denying the petition was that 

the facts of Gotowala’s case were such that sealing his criminal record

would “pose[] a danger to the citizens of Broward County and the general

public.”

Because the trial court’s order does not give specific reasons for denying 

Gotowala’s petition but is merely based on generalized considerations, we 

reverse.

When a petitioner satisfies the statutory requirements of Florida Rule 
2

of Criminal Procedure 3.692 and section 943.059, Florida Statutes (2013), 

the petitioner is “presumptively entitled to an order to seal or expunge 

court records.” Anderson v. State, 692 So. 2d 250, 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). 

Nonetheless, the decision of whether to grant the petition is entrusted to 

the trial court’s “sole discretion.” § 943.059, Fla. Stat. This discretion is 

not unfettered however. The trial court may not deny relief “based upon 

generalized considerations,” but must provide a good reason based on “the

facts and circumstances of the individual case.” Borg v. State, 169 So. 3d 

261, 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015); see, e.g., Gonzalez v. State, 565 So. 2d 410, 

411-12 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (stating it was not an abuse of discretion for 

the trial court to find that, because the petitioner was a public employee, 

the public had a right to know of the petitioner’s criminal history). 

In the instant case, the lower court’s mere reliance on the facts as laid 

out in a probable cause affidavit does not show “the court ma[d]e its 

decision based on consideration of all the facts and circumstances” of 

Gotowala’s case. Godoy v. State, 845 So. 2d 1016, 1017 (Fla. 3d DCA 

2003) (citation omitted). Moreover, the court’s order does not indicate the 

specific facts that led it to conclude that sealing Gotowala’s records would 

pose a danger to public safety. 

We remand with instruction that the trial court must provide specific 

reasons for denying Gotowala’s petition. The trial court may do so in a 

written order or after conducting an evidentiary hearing. But, in any 

event, the record must be clear that the decision was based on facts and 

circumstances of Gotowala’s individual case and not merely “generalized 

considerations.”

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.