advised in the premises, it is thereupon ordered and adjudged that the aforesaid motion shall be and the same is hereby denied. Done and ordered in open court at Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, this 25th Day of May 2005. As evidenced by the order above and the State’s concession, the trial court did not exercise its discretion based upon factors other than the offense for which the appellant was acquitted pursuant to section 943.059, Florida Statutes. Godoy v. State, 845 So.2d 1016, 1017 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (“the exercise of discretion contemplates that the court will make its decision based on consideration of all the facts and circumstances, rather than deciding the petition solely on the nature of the charge”) (citing Anderson v. State, 692 So.2d 250, 254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)) (<HOLDING>). See also State v. D.H.W., 686 So.2d 1331,
holding that before denying petition trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing and state specific reasons for denying the petition holding that the petition was not properly denied where the trial courts stated reason for denying the petition was that the defendant was afforded a break in the criminal justice system because he received a withhold of adjudication and early termination of probation holding that petition was properly filed even though the state court denied it as procedurally barred because the petition was delivered to and accepted by the state court holding that utility customers mailing of a petition did not constitute the filing of the petition as filing was not effectuated until the petition was received by the clerk holding that an appeal denying a petition for what was essentially a petition for a new trial to reopen the criminal process was not separately appealable