### NUM BER 13-08- 0039 8-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 CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G
TE XA S D EPA RT M ENT OF PU BL IC SA FE TY , A pp ellan t,
v. JIM M Y H A ROL D ST A TON , A pp ellee. On appeal fr om the 197th Dist ri ct Court of C amero n Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s M emo rand um Opin ion b y C hie f J us tice Vald ez This is a n appea l of an or der of ex punct ion

. Appel lee , J immy H ar old Sta ton, peti ti oned t he tr ial co urt t o ex pung e r ecords of his ar re st for dr iv ing w hil e i n to xicated, a C l a s s B mi s d e me a n o r
. See T EX
. P E N AL C ODE § 49.0 4 (Verno n 20 03). T he trial cou rt g ra nted the e xpu n cti on. In tw o i ss ues, the Tex as Dep artment of Publi c S afety( the Dep artmen t) c h a lle ng es the l eg al suffici ency of the e v ide nce to s uppor t t he order

ofT he o r der st at es: 1 O n th is th e 1 4 th d a y o fJ u ly, 1 9 6 6 , c a m e o n to b e h e a r d t h e p e tit io n o fth e D e f e n d a n t, J im m y H

. St at on, f or r eopen i ng a nd d i sm i s si ng t he i ndi ct m ent aga i nst hi m , i n t hi s cause and it a p p e a r in g t h a t t h e p ro v i s i o n o f t h e Ad u l t Pr o b a t i o n l a w h a v e b e e n c o m p l i ed wi t h and D e f e n d a n t [ is ] t h e r e b y e n tit le d to s u c h r e lie f , it is a c c o r d in g ly O r der ed t hat t hi s cause agai nst t he D ef endan t , Ji m m y H

. St at on i s her eby r eopen ed a nd t he i n d i c tm e n t a g a i n s t h i m b e , a n d i s h e re b y d i s m i s s e d

. (E m p h a s i s a d d e d .) 2 e xp u n c t io n
. T h e De p a rt m e n ta rg u e s t h a tS t a t o n f a il e d t o e s t a b li s h t h a th e d id n o tre c e ive
cour t- or der ed probati on unde r arti cl e 42.12 of the Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re and, ther efore, the t ri al cour t abu sed it s d is cr eti on i n g ra nti n g Staton’ s e x punct ion

. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 42.12 (V er non Su pp. 2 008)

. Beca use Stat on fail s t o meet the sta tutor y ex punct ion re q uir ements , and becau se w e hav e no eq uit abl e pow er to ex tend the pr otec ti ons of the ex punct ion st atute , w e r ev er se and r ender

. I. B A CKGRO UND On Jan uary 10, 196 5, Sta ton w as ar re sted for the o f f ense of driv ing w hile int ox ic ated. See T EX
. P EN AL C ODE § 49 .04. On Jul y 14, 1966, the c our

t r eopened and dis mis sed Stat on’ s i ndi ctmentafter f ind ing that he had succ ess fully complet ed probati on. On M ar ch 11, 2 008, Stat on filed a pe ti ti on for ex punct ion , and att ached the Jul y 14, 1966
or der di smi ss ing the ind ic tment upon t he c omplet ion of pr obati on. The Depar tment filed 1
an a nswer cont aining a general de nial, spe cial ex c e p t io ns, an d an af f irmative def ense cont endi ng thatbec ause Stat on h a d r ecei v ed probati on, h e w as not e nti tl ed to an e xp u n c t io n
. At S t a n t o n ’ s e xp u n c t io n h e a ri n g, h e a rg u e d t h a t“[ t ] h e T e xa s st a t u t e a ll o ws for an ex punct ion at that ti me [July 14, 1966], ev en if the defendant did ser v e probati on.” Al thoug h the tr ial co urt not ed th e D epar tment’ s o bje cti ons, i t gran te d the ex punct ion , cons ide ri ng that“ [s] omethi ng thatw as that ol d, and that w as dis mis sed under curr ent l aw back then ” shoul d be ex pung ed.3 II. E XP UNC TI ON OF R E CORDS By tw o issues, the Depa rtme nt cont end s t hat t he trial co urt erred in gr ant ing Staton ’s p e t it io n fo r e xp u n c t io n b e c a u s e S t a t o n p r e s e n t e d n o e vid e n c e t h a th e d id n o tre c e ive pr obati on. W e ag re e. A . St and ard o f Rev iew A tr ial co urt’ s r uli ng on a n ex punct ion i s r ev iew ed under an abus e of di sc re ti on sta ndar d. Hei

ne v . T ex. D ep’ t of Pub. Saf

ety , 92 S.W .3d 6 42, 6 46 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 2002, pet. deni ed)

. A tr ial cour t abuse s it s dis cr eti on w hen it act s w it hout re feren ce to gui din g ru les and pri nci ple s o r if i ts act ion s a re ar bit ra ry and unr eason abl e. Downer v. Aquam ar ine Ope rators, In c. , 701 S.W .2d 238 , 241 -42 (Te x . 198 5). W hen r ev iew ing a c hal len g e to the l eg al suffici ency of t he ev ide nce, w e “ v iew the evidence in t h e light mo st f avorable to th e v erdict, cred iting fa v orab le evi den ce if
re asona ble j ur or s c oul d, an d di sr eg ar din g co ntr ar y ev ide nce if r e a s o n a b l e j ur or s c oul d not .” City of Kel

ler v. W ilson , 168 S.W .3d 8 02, 8 07, 8 27 ( Tex . 200 5)

. The tes t for leg al suffici ency

i s w hether

the ev ide nce w oul d enabl e r eason abl e and f a ir-mi nded pe opl e to
re ach the j udg ment bei ng r ev iew ed. Id. at 827- 28. B. Requireme nts for Expunction Ex punct i o n i s n e it her

a c onst it uti onal nor

co mmon-l aw

r ig ht, but a st atuto ry

pr iv il eg e. Mc Car ro ll v. T ex. D ep’ t of Pub. Saf

ety , 86 S.W .3d 376, 378 (Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 20 02, no pet .)

. “The tr ial co urt must str ic tl y compl y w it h the s tatut or y pr ocedu re s for

ex punct ion , and i t c o m m it s r eversible error w hen it fa ils to comp ly .” Tex. Dep’ t of Pu b. Sa fety v. Fredricks , 235 S.W .3d 275 , 281 (Te x . App .–Corp us Christi, 200 7, no pet .). Th e ap plicable rules a trial court ap plies in det ermin ing a perso n’s rig ht to expunctio n are set out in article4

5 5 .01 of the Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re
. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 55.01 (V er non 200 6)

. Ar ti cl e 55.01 set s out that a person is enti tl ed to ex punct ion of an
a r r e s tr e c o r d i f: (1 ) the p er son is tri ed f or the off ense for w hic h the person w as ar re ste d and is: (A) acquitted by the trial court, except as provided by Subsect ion (c) of this sec ti on; o r (B ) conv ic ted a nd s ubseq uentl y par doned; or (2 ) each of the foll ow ing co ndi ti ons ex is t:

. . . . (B) the pe rson ha s bee n release d and the charge, i f any, has n ot resulte d in a final conv ic ti on and is no lon g er pendi ng and ther e w as no c our t order ed com mu nity supe rv ision un der Article 42. 12 for a ny of f ense othe r than a Class C mis demeanor

. . . . Id. Th e on ly

clause of

the sta tuto ry

e x pun ction provisi on at issue in this ap pea l is article 55.01( a) (2 )( B)

. C. A nal y sis At t he ex punct ion hear ing , St aton ar g ued t hat, ev en i f he did rec eiv e probati on, “ the T exas statut e allow[ed] f or an expunctio n at tha t time .” Article 55. 01 w as no t ena cted until Aug ust29, 1977. Ac t of A u g. 2 9 , 1 9 7 7 , 6 5 t h L e g. , R

. S

. , c h

. 7 4 7 , § 1 , 1 9 7 7 T e x. G e n
. L a ws 1880 (c ur re nt v er si on atT EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 55.0 1)

. Pr ior to the e nact ment of ar ti cl e 55.01, ther e w as no law author iz ing the ex punct ion of cr imi nal r ecords. Sta te v. Ar ell ano , 801 S.W .2d 1 2 8, 13 3 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Ant oni o 1990, no w ri t)

. W e, t her efore, retroact iv ely app ly

the curren t expunctio n stat ute to det ermin e w het her the trial court pr oper ly ex pung ed St aton’ s c ri minal r ecord. See i d. at 12 9, 13 2- 34.5

Ap e rs o n ’s e n t it le m e n t t o e xp u n c t io n a ri s e s o n ly a f t e r al l st a t u t o ry co n d it io n s h a ve been met

. Tex . D ep’

t of Public Safety

v. But ler , 941 S.W .2d 3 18, 3 20 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1997, no w ri t)

. “The tr ial co urt mus t s tr ic tl y co mply w it h the st atuto ry

pr ocedu re s for expunctio n, an d it com mits reversible error w hen it fa ils to comp ly .” Fredricks , 235 S.W .3d at 28 1

. T o b e e n t i t l e d t o a n e x p u n c t i o n , S t a t o n h a s t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g t h a ta l l o f t he sta tutor y r e quirement s h av e been sat is fied. Id. at 282. At the e x punct ion hear ing , t he
cour t t ook jud ic ial noti ce of the J uly 14, 1966 order

di smi ss ing the in d ict ment upo n the compl eti on of pr obati on. Stat on pr esent ed no ev ide nce that he di d notr ecei v e probati on; instea d, he simply argued th at even if h e had rece iv ed prob ation , his criminal record sho uld be ex pung ed. On this record, v iew ing the ev ide nce in the li g ht most f av or abl e to the t ri al court’ s ruling, w e con clude the evidence is l egally insuf f icient to supp ort the trial court’s
or der of ex punct ion

. See C it y o f Ke ller

, 68 S. W .3d at 807, 827-28 . Th e Depa rtme nt’s f irst is sue is su sta ine d. Beca use St ato n f a il ed to prove that he w as no t place d on proba tion u nde r article 42.12, and becau se w e hav e no eq uit abl e pow er to ex tend the ex punct ion statut e bey ond it s s tated av ail abi li ty , St aton is not enti tl ed to ex punct ion of re cords re lat ed to thi s a rr est

. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 55.01( a) (2 )( B) ; see a lso Fredricks , 235 S.W .3d a t 281. W e conc lud e that the tr ial cour t abuse d it s d is cr eti on by ente ri ng an o rd er

ex pung ing Stat on’ s r ecords, and w e s ust ain the Dep artment’ s s econd i ss ue. III . C ONCL US I ON W e r ev er se the t ri al cour t’ s o rd er and re nder

j udg ment den y ing the expun cti on. Pur suantto the D epar

tment’ s p ra y er

for r eli ef, w e or der

all d o cument s t hat w er e tur ned
ov er to the t ri al cour

t, or to S taton , t o be re tur ned t o the su bmit ti ng ag enci es. See Ex Par te6

El li ot , 815 S.W .2d 2 51, 2 52 ( Tex . 199 1) ( per cu ri am) (p ro vidi n g t hat r ev er sal of the expunctio n ap plies to all respo nde nts, e v en if they did not pa rticipate in the ap pea l).
RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice
Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed on t his the 13th day of Aug ust , 200 9.