### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

EDWARD GOTOWALA
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 14

- 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.

L E VINE , J.

In G otowala 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 reason s 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 C ounty 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 Rule2

of Criminal P rocedure 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).

N onetheless, 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) ; s ee, 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, t he 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 c onclude 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 conducti ng 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

.

C ONNER and F ORST

, JJ., concur

.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.