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 Appeal from the 88th District Court 

Hardin County, Texas

Trial Cause Nos. 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 be 
2

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 orders 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 requirements. Collin Cnty. Criminal Dist. Attorney’s Office v. Dobson, 

167 S.W.3d 625, 626 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.). A trial court may rule 

upon an applicant’s right to expunction without a hearing if all the facts necessary 

to determine the issue are before 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 

rulings 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 for the state, admit 

during the sentencing hearing his guilt of one or more unadjudicated 
3

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 with a suspended license, and the State moved to dismiss the charge on 

grounds that the case had been “‘12.45’d into [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 appeal, the Eighth 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 DWLS 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 prosecution pursuant 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 barred 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 orders 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.