With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". abused its discretion by denying the appellant’s petition to seal without hearing evidence on the issue or providing a reason based on the facts and circumstances for its denial. The appellant was charged with lewd or lascivious molestation. Following a jury trial, he was acquitted of the charge. The appellant petitioned the court to have his record sealed pursuant to section 943.059, Florida Statutes (2005). The court held a hearing on the appellant’s petition. The appellant asserts, and the State concedes, that no evidence was introduced at the hearing. Furthermore, the trial court’s order did not state any factual basis for denying the appellant’s petition. The order provided: The court having heard arguments of the State Attorney and of counsel for defense, and being (Fla.1996) (<HOLDING>); Johnson v. State, 336 So.2d 93, 95 (Fla.

A: recognizing that refinement of rule governing confidential court records was a necessary step in providing the public electronic access to court records
B: holding that in reviewing the petition the court is to weigh the policy of public access to records against the longstanding public policy of providing a second chance to criminal defendants who have not been adjudicated guilty
C: recognizing that intent of public records act is to provide all citizens with access to the records of all public governmental bodies
D: holding that an arbitration award involving the appellants challenge to the failure of the insurance company to ensure that he had read and understood a signed waiver and to attach the waiver to the insurance policy as contrary to public policy is not reviewable by the courts because there is no challenge to a provision or term of the policy the appellant never claimed that the waiver or policy language itself was contrary to the public policy of this commonwealth
B.