### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 6 -00 518 -CV

Te xa s D e par tm e ntof P ublic Safe ty , A ppe lla nt

v. Sam Sorrell , Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF MCCULLO CH COUNTY , 198TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 2005 069 , HO NORAB LE V. MURRAY JORDAN , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
The Te x as De partment of Public Safe ty appea ls the district co u rt ’s order g ranting
ex p u n ct i on of re cords c oncer ning Sam Sorre ll’s arre st for burg lary of a building
. See T e x. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02 (West 2003). The DPS contends that S orre ll failed to produce evidenc e that he had not bee n convicted of a fe l o n y i n t h e fi v e y ear s previous to his arre st. W e sustain the DPS’s point on appea l, r ever se the judgme nt of the district court, a nd rende r judg ment denying e x punction. On April 26, 2005, Sorre l l fi l ed a petition for expunction of his criminal recor d arisingout of h i s M ar ch 1 8 , 1985 arr est for bur g lary . The DPS answer ed with an a ffirmative defe nse, spec ial exceptions, and a g ener al denial. A he aringwas he ld on J u n e 1 3 , 2 005, befor e J udg e Ka rl Prohl. The DPS appea red at this hearing , but the heari n g wa s re ce s sed to allow J udg e Murr ay

J ordan to he ar the matter be cause he had o ri gi n al l y presided ove r the de fer red adjudication and ple a a gre em en t fo r t he 1985 cha rg e. On June 16, 2006, a sec ond hear ing on the2

e xp un c ti o n w a s h e ld b e f

o r e Ju d g e Jo r d an . H o w e v e r , n e it h e r th e D PS n o r an y o th e r re spondent appea red. The district court ente red a n order expungingall files and r ecor ds conce rningSorrell’s
arr e st f ro m e a c h n ame d r e sp on de nt. A per son is entitled to an expunction under article 55.01(a)( 2) of the code of criminal proce dure only

when a ll statutory

require ments have be en satisfied. See H eine v . Texas De

p’t of P ub . S afe ty , 92 S.W .3d 642, 646 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, pet. denied). Subs ection (C) of article 55.01(a) (2) r equire s that Sorrell not have be en “c onvicted of a felony i n t h e five year s prec edingthe date of

the ar rest.” T ex. C ode Crim. Proc. An n . art. 55.01(a )(2) (C) (West 2006). Sorrell ca rries the burden of

provingcompliance with this st atutory require ment. See H

eine , 92 S.W .3d at 646. The D PS contends that Sorrell failed t o p ro d u ce any evidenc e that he ha d not been c onvicted of a

felony in the five y ear s previous to his arre st. I f more tha n a scintilla of evide nce exis ts to support the trial court’s findingof complianc e with article 55.01(a) (2)( C), the DP S’s noevidenc e cha lleng e fa ils. See Tarrant Reg’l W ater Dist. v. Gragg , 151 S.W .3d 546, 552 (Tex. 2004). Sorrell alleg ed in his petition that he had not bee n convic t ed o f a fe l ony in the five y ear s prec eding the date of hi s arr est. Howeve r, t he DPS answe red with a g ener al denial. When
a pa rt y fi le s a g e ne ra l de nia l in

the tr ia l c ourt , the pla int if f is p ut t o p ro of

on a ll i ssu e s a lle g e d in

his petition. See Te x. R. C iv. P. 9 2; Estrada v. Dillon , 4 4 S
. W
. 3 d 5 5 8 , 5 6 2 ( T e x . 2 0 0 1 )
. A c c o r d i n g l y, Sorrell was r equire d to prove c ompliance wi t h s ubsection (C) of article 55.01(a) (2). Se e In re Expunc tion of A.R. , 225 S.W .3d 643, 646 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2006, no pet.). Sorre ll introduced
no e vid e nc e on

thi s is su e a t th e June 16 , 2 00 6 he ari ng . Th e re fo re , th e re c or d d isc los e s a c omp le te
a bs e nc e of e vid e nc e of a vit a l fa c t, an d Sor re ll ha s not m e t hi s b ur de n o f p ro vin g c omp lia nc e wi thThe DPS asserts two a dditional points on appea l: (1) Sorrell fa iled to prove that ther e wa s 1 no court ordere d probation, i n acc ordanc e with subsection (B ) of a rticle 55.01(a )(2) ; and (2) the court failed to g i v e reasonable notice of the June 16, 2006 expunction hearing . Be cause the abse nce of evidenc e on subsec tion (C) of ar t i cle 55.01(a)( 2) is dispositi ve, we need not r eac h the re maining po int s o n a

pp e a l. 3 article 55.01(a) (2). See id. at 646-47 (holding that petition f or expunction should be denied whe re pe tit ion e r a lle g e d c omp lia nc e wi th art ic le 55 .0 1( a )( 2) (C ) i n h is p e tit ion , St a te fi le d a g e ne ra l de nia l, and petitioner f

ailed to introduce evidence demonstratingcompliance with article 55.01( a)( 2)(C)) ; Ex parte J

ackson , 132 S.W .3d 713, 716 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, n o pet.); Texas De p’t of Pub. Sa fe ty v . Cl au dio , 13 3 S.W. 3d 63 0, 63 2- 33 (T e x. Ap p. —Co rp us Chr ist i 20 02 , no pet. ); Sta te v. He rron , 5 3 S. W.3 d 8 43 , 8 47 -4 8 ( Te x. Ap p. —Fort W ort h 2 00 1, no pe t.) ; Ex pa rteMy e rs , 24 S.W .3d 477, 481 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000, no pet.). T h e district cour

t erre d in gr anting Sorrell’s petition for e x punction on this recor d. We reve rs e the district cour t’s order g rantingexpunction and rende r judg ment denying Sorr ell’s petition for expunction. 1

__________________________________________ G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Waldrop a nd Henson Reverse d and Rende red Filed: De cembe r 19, 2008