### NUM BER 13-09- 0014 5-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
TEXA S DEPA RTM ENT OF PUB LIC SA FE TY , A pp ellan t,
v . M A RIA GU A DA LU PE C RU Z, A pp ellee.

On a p p ea l f ro m th e 40 4t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of C amero n Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A ND UM OP IN ION B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G arza , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza Appel lan t, the Tex as Dep artment of Publi c S a f ety ( “TD PS” ), br ing s t his r est ri cte d app eal cha llenging the trial court’s order of ex pun ction in f avor of a ppe llee, Maria Guadal upe C ru z . See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 30. By tw o i ss ues, the TDPS ar g ues that: ( 1) C ru z
w as not e nti tl ed to an e x punct ion becau se she faile d to prov e tha t t he i ndi ctmentpr esent ed ag ain st her

w as dis mis sed pur suantto arti cl e 55. 01( a) (2 )( A) of the c ode of cr imi n alT he T D PS di d no t f i l e a ny post j udgm ent m ot i ons, nor di d i t m ake r equest s f or f i ndi ngs o ff act or 1 co nc l us i on s of

l aw
. 2 pr ocedu re , see T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 55.01( a) (2 )( A) (Ver non 2006); and (2 ) the t ria l court abu sed its discretio n in orde ring the ex pun ction o f Cruz ’s cri min al record becau se the TD PS di d notr ecei v e not ic e of the h e ar ing at w hic h the ex punct ion w as g ra nted as re q uir ed by

ar ti cl e 55. 02, sec ti on 2( c) of t he code of c ri minal pr ocedu re
. See id. a rt . 5 5 .0 2 , § 2 (c) (Ve rn o n Su p p . 2 0 0 8 ). W e reve rse an d rem a n d fo r pr o ce e d in gs
cons is tent w it h thi s o pin ion

. I. B A CKGRO UND On A ug u s t 3 , 2 0 0 7 , C r u z w a s a r r e s t e d fo r a b a n d o n i n g o r e n d a n g e r i n g a c hil d, a felony

. See T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 22. 041 ( Ver non Su pp. 2 008)

. Cr uzw as charg ed by ind ic tment w it h the off ense; how ev er , t he i ndi ctmentag ain st Cr uzw as dis mis sed on J une 13, 2 008, after Cr uz pai d a c har it abl e c ontr ibu ti on and w ro te a let ter of apol og y . On Jul y 21, 2008, Cr uz f il ed a peti ti on f or ex punct ion

. A heari ng on C ru z ’s peti ti on was s e t f o r Oc to b e r 2, 20 0 8 , a n d t h e T DP S a d m it s th a t it r e ce ived n o ti ce of th is h e a rin g. On S eptember

30, 2008, the TD PS fil ed an or ig ina l answ er deny ing the all eg ati ons made in Cruz ’s petitio n a n d asse rted th at Cruz w as no t ent itled to an expunct ion un der article 55.01( a) (2 )( A)

. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 55 .01 (a)(2)(A). Thou gh the r ecord does not cont ain an o rd er r eset ti ng the or ig ina ll y sc hedul ed Oct ober 2, 2008 he ar ing , t he tr ial co urt c onduc ted a hear ing on C ru z ’s peti ti on on Oct ober 16, 2 008

. T h e T DP S di d notappear for t he Oc tober

16, 2008 he ar ing , and at the
conc lus ion of the h ear ing , t he tr ial cour t or der ed an ex punct ion of Cr uz ’s cr imi nal r ecord. On March 19 , 200 9, th e T DPS f iled its no t ic e o f r e stricted ap pea l. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 1 26.1( c)

.3 II. R E S TR I CT E D A P P E AL T o succe ssf ully

atta ck an orde r by

restricted ap pea l, the T DPS mu st show: (1) it
w as a par

ty w ho di d not parti ci pate, ei ther i n person or

throug h c ounse l, i n the hear ing that
re sul ted i n the j udg ment c omplai ned of; ( 2) i t f il ed a noti ce of appeal w it hin si x months after the o rd er w as si g ned; (3 ) it did not ti mely file a post jud g ment moti on or re q uest findi ng s o r fact and conc lus ion s o f law ; and ( 4) er ro r is ap par ent o n the face of the re cor d. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.1( c) , 30; Alexander v. Lynda’

s B outi que , 134 S.W .3d 845 , 848 (Tex. 2004 ); se e Tex. Dep’

t of Pu b. Sa fety v. Fredricks , 235 S.W .3d 2 75, 2 78 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 200 7, no pet. ). III . S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW In r est ri cte d appea ls , w e ar e l imi ted t o c onsi der ing only er ro rs thatar e appar ent o n the f ace of the r ecord. See Nor m an Com m c’

ns v. Tex

. East

m an C o. , 955 S.W .2d 2 69, 2 70 (Tex . 199 7) ( per

cu ri am); Fredricks , 235 S.W .3d at 280. The “face of t he re cor d” i ncl udes all papers o n fil e in the a ppeal and the r epor ter ’s r ecord, i f any

. Nor m an C om m c’

ns , 955 S.W .2d a t 270

. A r est ri cte d appea l aff or ds the appell ant the same s cope of rev iew as an or din ar y appeal —i n oth er

w or ds, the enti re ca se. See i d. Ar ti cl e 55. 02 of the code of cr im inal procedu re g ov er ns the p ro cedur es for
ex punct ion

. T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 55.02. These pr ov is ion s a re mandato ry and must be c ompli ed w it hin an ex punct ion proce edi ng
. Tex. Dep’ t of Pu b. Sa fety v. Deck , 954 S.W .2d 1 08, 1 11-1 2 (Te x . App .–S an An ton io 199 7, no w rit); Tex. Dep’ t of Pu b. Sa fety v. Ri ley , 773 S.W .2d 7 56, 7 58 ( Tex . App.–San Anton io 1989, no w ri t) . Arti cl e 55. 02 prov ide s t h a tt h e t ri a l c o u rt sh a ll se ta h e a ri n g o n a p e t it io n fo r e xp u n c t io n n o so o n e r t h a n t h irt y d a ys f rom th e f iling of

the pe tition a nd sh all g iv e reas o n a b le notice of the he aring to each
re s p o n d e n tn a m e d in t h e p e t it io n , n a m e ly, t h e va ri o u s la w e n fo rc e m e n ta ge n c ie s t h a th a ve4

re cor ds or

fil e s subj ectto ex punct ion

. T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 55 .02 , § 2(c). W hil e the re i s n o r eq uir ement t hat t he r espon dents be s er v ed w ith the peti ti on for
ex punct ion i tse lf, t he tr ial co urt i s r e qui re d t o n o ti fy them of the hear ing

. See Deck , 954 S.W .2d a t 112 ( noti ng thatbec ause an ex punct ion hea ri ng i s c iv il i n nat ur e, ea ch law enf orcem ent agency cited is ent itled to represen t itself ); se e al so Tex . D ep’

t of Pub. Saf

ety
v. Fl or es , N o. 04 -0 7- 00257- CV , 2 0 0 8 T ex . Ap p. LE X IS 1 021, at * *2- 4 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Antoni o F eb. 1 3, 20 08, n o pet .) (mem. op.) (s etti ng aside an ex punct ion or der w her e a l aw enforc ement ag ency

w as noti fied of the or ig ina ll y sc hedul ed ex punct ion heari ng but not o f the r esetex punct ion hear ing ). If the r ecord does not in dic ate that a proper agenc y w as noti fied in accordance w it h the s tatute, t h e n t he r ecord r eflect s a pr oceed ing i n v iol ati on of the sta tute and t he
ex punct ion or der

mustbe setas ide

. See Deck , 954 S.W .2d a t 112 ; Rod ri guez v. T .M .B. , 812 S. W .2d 44 9 , 4 5 0 -5 1 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Ant oni o 1991, no w ri t) ( set ti ng as ide an expunctio n orde r af

ter f inding tha t the hea ring too k place w ithou t not ice to an y respon den t); Ri ley , 773 S.W .2d at 758 (s etti ng asi de an ex punct ion or der becau se the reco rd di d not ref lect tha t the law

enf orcem ent agencies ha d b e e n n otif ied of the he aring and be cause the tr ial courtvi ola ted t he th ir ty -d ay w ait ing per iod ); see als o F lor es , 200 8 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 1021, at * *2- 4. IV. A N AL Y S IS In its secon d issue, the T DPS asse rts that th e tria l c o u rt abu sed its discretio n in orde ring the ex pun ction o f Cruz ’s cri min al record be cause the T DPS did no t receive notice of the Octo ber 16 , 200 8 he aring. The re p o rt e r’ s record ref lects tha t the trial court condu cte d a h ear ing on O cto ber 16, 2008. Nei ther

the TDPS nor

any othe r ag ency

l is ted in the p eti ti on for ex punct ion ( other than t h e C amero n C ounty D is tr ic t At tor ney ’s Office)I n i t s m ot i on f or “ D ES I G N AT I O N O F C LER K’ S R EC O R D , ” t he T D PS r equest ed t ha t al l f i at s and 2 not i ces of hear i ng f or t he O ct ober 2, 2008 and O ct ober 16, 200 8 he ar i ng d at es cor r espond i ng t o al l of t he l aw enf or cem ent age nci es l i st ed i n Cru z ’ s pet i t i on f or expunct i on be pr ov i ded i n t he cl er k ’ s re cor d. N o no t i ce of hear i ng t o t he l aw enf or cem ent age nci es f or t he O ct ober 16, 200 8 he ar i ng a ppear s i n t he r ecor d be f or e us. M o r e v e r , C r u z h a s n o t f ile d a b r ie f in th is m a tt e r d ir e c tin g u s to e v id e n c e d e m o n s tr a tin g th a t t h e T D P S a c tu a lly re c e i v e d n o ti c e o f th e O c to b e r 1 6 , 2 0 0 8 h e a rin g
. 5 w er e pr esentat the h ear ing

. Fur ther mo re , th e record i s d ev oid of any or der or othe r documentnoti fyi ng the law enforc ement ag enci es li ste d in Cr uz ’s peti ti on of the re set ti ng o f th e Oc to b e r 2, 20 0 8 he a rin g to Oc to b e r 1 6 , 20 0 8

. Fol lo wing Deck , w e hol d tha t i t w as 2
er ro r for th e tr ial co urt t o or der Cru z’s re co rd s e x pung ed w it hout pr ov idi ng noti ce to t he TDPS of the Oc tober

16, 2008 he ar ing

. See 954 S.W .2d a t 112 -1 3. This v iol ati on of
ma nda tory proce dure s requir es us to se t aside the trial court’ s o rd er expunging Cruz ’s
re cor ds. S e e R o dr

igu ez , 8 1 2 S.W .2d a t 450 -5 1; see als o R il ey , 773 S.W .2d a t 758

. Acc or din g ly , w e s ust ain the TDPS’ s s econd i ss ue. Beca use w e have susta ined t he T DPS’s secon d issue, w e nee d not a ddre ss its f irst is sue. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.1. V. C ONCL US I ON The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt is re versed, t he ex punct ion or der i s s et as ide , and the c ase is r emanded t o the tr ial co urt for pr oceed ing s c onsi ste nt w it h thi s o pin ion

.

_________

_________

______ DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 31s t day

of Aug ust , 200 9.