### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-10-00164- CV

The State of Texas, App ellant

v. M. R., Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 299 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -EX- 09- 0006 52, H ONO RAB LE CHARLES F . B AIRD, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Ap p el lee M. R. filed a petition seeking the expunction of all rec ords rela ted t o h i s 2003 arr est for driving while intox icated. The S tate filed a genera l denial and specia l exceptions, and M. R. filed an amende d petition in response . After a hear ing, the trial court signe d an order
g ranting M. R.’s expunction reque st. The State appea ls, arg uing in three issues that the trial court’s orde r wa s er roneous. We reve rse the trial court’s order and rende r judgme nt deny ing M. R.’s petition for expunction.

Stand ard of Review

I n the State’s first issue, it asser ts there is no evidenc e to support the tr i al co u rt ’s expunction order, ra ising a challeng e to the leg al suffic iency of the e vidence

. See H

ouston Police Dep’ t v. Berkowitz , 95 S.W .3d 457, 460 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied). We conduct a leg al-suff

iciency revie w by viewing the evidence in the l ight m ost favor able to the t rialcourt’s finding s, cre diting favor able evidenc e if a rea sonable fac t-finder could have d o n e s o and

disreg arding contra

ry evidenc e unless a rea sonable fac t-finder could not have done so. City of Keller

v. W ilson , 168 S.W .3d 802, 827 (Tex. 2005); In r e E xp u n ct i o n o

f A.R. , 225 S.W .3d 643, 645 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2006, no pet.). A person who has been arr ested for a crime may seek to have the rec ords of his arr est and any char g es expunged if he meets t h e statutory require ments set out in the code of criminal proce dure. See Act of May 31, 2009, 81st L eg ., R.S., ch. 1103, §17(b), 2009
Tex. Gen. L aws 3010, 3019-20 (ame nded 2011) (cur rent version at Tex. Co de Crim. Proc. Ann.
art. 55.01(a) (2) (West Supp. 2011)). Ex punction is a statutory privileg e, and the person seeking 1

ex p unction bear s the burden of showing he has satisfied all nece ssary statutory conditions. A.R. , 225 S.W .3d at 646; see Berkowitz , 9 5 S

. W

. 3 d at 460-61; Texas Dep’ t of Pub. Safety v. W allace , 63 S.W .3d 805, 806 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, no pet.). The statute require s strict compliance , and courts do not have the equitable pow er to e x pung e re cords. Berkowitz , 95 S.W .3d at 460.

Discussion
I n its first issue, the State arg ues th at M. R. did not prove that he had not been convicted of a fel o n y wi thin the five y ear s befor e his arr est, one of the elements require d to be
p r o v e n b e f

o r e h e c a n s h o w h im s e lf e n ti tl e d to e xp u n c ti o n . S e e A c t o f M a

y 3 1 , 2 0 0 9 , 8 1 s t L e g . , R. S. , 2 ch. 1103, §17(b), 2009 Tex. Gen. L aws at 3 0 1 9-20 (amended 2011) (if indi ctment or information is prese nted and later quashed or dismiss ed, petitioner must prove (1) char g e dismiss ed or quashed

M. R.’s arr est took place in 2003, and the statute has since been amende d. We will cite to 1 the ver sion of the statute that wa s applicable to M. R.’s arre st. M. R. did not respond to this issue in his appellate brie f. 2 2beca

use of lack of p ro b ab l e ca u s e or because indictment or i nformation was void; (2) person was rele ased, char g e did not result in final conviction, char g e no lon ger pending , and no community supervision was order ed for o ffe nse other than Class C misdemeanor; and (3) person was not convicted of

felony within five y ear s befor e ar rest). We a g ree . I n his verifie d petition, M. R. stated that he had not been convicted of a felony in the five y ear s befor e the arr est. I n response , the State enter ed a g ener al deni al , s t at ing that it denied
“ea ch and ever

y all ega t i o n in the petition and respe ctfully demand[ed] strict proof there of.” The
State also specia lly excep t ed that M. R.’s petition “does not plead all elements of the cause of action,” spe cifica lly

arg uing tha t M. R. had not a lleg ed that he had not be en plac ed on community supervision. M. R. then filed an am en d ed p et ition, in which he ag ain stated he had “not been convicted of

a fe lony in the five y ear s prec eding the date of the ar rest.” Although M. R. filed a v er i fied petition alleg ing he had not been convicted within the five y ear s befor e his arr est, the State filed a g ener al denial, requiring M. R. to prove eac h element of his expunction claim. See A.R. , 225 S.W .3d at 646; State v. Herron , 53 S.W .3d 843, 847 ( T e x. A p p . — F o r t Wo r th 2 0 0 1 , n o p e t. ) ; E

x p a r te M y e r s , 2 4 S. W. 3 d 4 7 7 , 4 8 1 ( T e x. A p p . — T e xa

r k a n a 2000, no pet.); Texas Dep’ t of Pub. Safety v. Moran , 949 S.W .2d 523, 526 (Tex. App.—San Antonio
1 9 9 7 , n o w r it )

. A t th e h e a r in g o n h is p e ti ti o n , M

. R. d id n o t p r e s e n t a ny te s ti mo ny o r o th e r e v id e n c e . 3

See also Texas Dep’ t o

f P u b

. Safety v. Sorrell , No. 03-06-00518- CV, 2008 Tex. App. 3 L EXI S 9488, at *3 (Tex. App.—A ustin De c. 19., 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“When a party files a g ener al denial in the t rial court, the pl aintiff is put to proof on al l i s s u es al l eged in his petition.”); Texas Dep’ t of

Pub. Safety v. Borhani , No. 03-08-00142- CV, 2008 Tex. App. L EXI S 7509, at *9-10 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 3, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“The alleg ations alone in a verifie d petition, afte r being put in issue by a g ener al denial, do not constitute proof of those alleg ations.”). 3The only

evidenc e admitted wa s four documents prese nted by the S tate. Theref ore, M. R. did not
prese nt a ny evidenc e to suppor

t his assertion that he had not be en convic ted of a felony within the five y ear s befor e he w as ar rested. See A .R. , 225 S.W .3d at 646-47; Herron , 53 S.W .3d at 847-48; Mye rs , 24 S.W .3d at 481. Be cause “[t] he rec ord discloses a complete absenc e of evidenc e of a vital fac t,” the trial c ourt err ed in g ranting M. R.’s expunction request. See H erron , 53 S.W .2d at 848.

Conclusion
We s ustain the State’s first issue. We reve rse the trial court’s order of expunction and rende r judgme nt deny ing M. R.’s petition for expunction. See A.R. , 225 S.W .3d at 647; Herron , 53 S.W .2d at 845, 848; Mye rs , 24 S.W .3d at 481; Moran , 949 S.W .2d at 527. Be cause the State’s first issue is disposit ive of the c ase, w e nee d not decide the other two issues.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice
Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pury ear and Pember

ton Reverse d and Rende red Filed: Mar ch 27, 2012

4