1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO
. 09
- 14
- 00251
- CV NO. 09
- 14
- 00252
- CV

____________________ TOMMIE ALLEN RINGO , Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

_________________________________ ______________________ On A ppeal from the 88th District Court Hardin County, Texas Trial Cause No s . 54371, 54373

________________________________________ ____ ____________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Tommie Allen Ringo, pro se , filed petitions for expunction of records arising out of an arrest for the offenses of driving while intoxicated and driving
while his license was invalid. Ringo argued that the charges against him had been
dismissed. The trial court denied the petitions without a hearing. Ringo appealed. Ringo failed to file a brief, and we informed Ringo that his appeal would be2 submitted to the Court on the record alone. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(2), 39.8.
We affirm the trial court’s order s denying Ringo’s petitions for expunction.
A person who has been arrested for a felony or misdemeanor is entitled to have all records and files relating to the arrest expunged if the person is tried for the offense and is either acquitted by the trial court or convicted and subsequently pardoned or otherwise granted relief on the basis of actual innocence. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 55.01(a)(1) , (b)(ii) (West Supp. 2014 ). A statutory expunction is a civil proceeding, and the petitioner must prove that he has complied with the statutory requireme nts. Collin Cnty. Criminal Dist. Attorney’s Office v. Dobson , 167 S.W.3d 625, 626 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 200 5, no pet.)

. A trial c ourt may rule upon an applicant’ s right to expunction without a hearing if all the facts necessary
to determine the issue are befor e the trial court. Ex parte Current , 877 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. App.

— Waco 1994, no writ). We review the trial court’s expunction ruling s under an abuse of discretion standard. Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. J.H.J. , 274 S.W.3d 803, 806 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.).
The record indicates that the two criminal actions against Ringo were dismissed pursuant to section 12.45 of the Texas Penal Code. Section 12.45 provides, in pertinent part, that: (a) A person may, with the consent of the attorney f or the state, admit during the sentencing hearing his guilt of one or more unadjudicated3 offenses and request the court to take each into account in determining sentence for the offense or offenses of which he stands adjudged guilty.

. . . (c) If a court lawfully takes into account an admitted offense, prosecution is barred for that offense.
Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.45 (a), (c) (West 2011 ). In In re O.R.T. , 414 S.W.3d
330 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 2013, no pet.), O.R.T. was arrested and charged for driving wi th a suspended license , and the State moved to dismiss the charge on grounds that the case had been “‘12.45’ d i nto [cause number] 20000C07310.’” Id

. at 331

- 32 , 335

. O.R.T. filed a petition for expunction , which the trial court granted.
Id . at 331

- 32. On ap peal, t he Eight h Court of Appeals explained that, “ When a defendant admits guilt to an offense arising out of an arrest, he concedes that the arrest was not wrongful for purposes of the expunction statute. ” Id . at 335. The
Court held that O.R.T. failed to meet Article 55.01’s requirements “ [ b ] ecause the admitted, unadjudicated DWL S offense became part of O.R.T.’ s judgment and criminal record, resulted in a final DWI conviction, and was dismissed only because the State was barred from further prosec ution pur suant to section 12.45[

. ]”
Id . at 336. Accordingly, “ O.R.T. was not entitled to have his DWLS offense and arrest records expunged [

. ]” Id

.4 As in O. R.T

. , the State in this case only dismissed the two criminal actions against Ringo because the State was bar red from further prosecution under section
12.45. See id

. For this reason, Ringo was not entitled to expunction. See id

. We
affirm the trial court’s order s denying Ringo’s petitions for expunction.
AFFIRMED.

_________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice
Submitted on October 6, 2014 Opinion Delivered October 23, 2014 Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson , JJ.