### NUM BER 13-08- 0052 0-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 C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG

TE XA S D EPA RT M ENT OF PU BL IC SA FE TY , A pp ellan t,

v . JOSE LU IS SOT O, A pp ellee.

On ap pe al f rom th e 1 07t h Dist rict C ou rt of C amero n Co un ty , T exas . 

## O P I N I O N Be fo re Ju stice s Y añ ez, R od rigu ez, an d Be na v ide s

Opin ion b y

Ju stice R od rigu ez App ellant , the Te x as Depa rtme nt of Public Saf ety ( T DPS), app eals th e trial court's orde r g rantin g a pet ition fo r expunctio n f iled by app ellee, Jose Luis Sot o. By tw o issues, T DPS con ten ds tha t it did not receiv e not ice of the expun ction h earing and that Soto did2

not meet hi s b ur den of pr oof. W e r ev er se and set asi de th e ex punct ion or der and re mand for pr oceed ing s c onsi ste nt w it h thi s o pin ion

. I. B A CKGRO UND On D ecember

19, 2007, Soto filed a pe ti ti on for ex punct ion of his ar re st re cor ds that li ste d fiv e ag enci es as re spond ents , inc lud ing TDPS. The tr ial cour t set a h e a rin g for Ma rc h 3, 2 0 0 8 , a n d T DP S w as noti fied of the hear ing by ce rt ified mai l. TD PS fil ed an
or ig ina l answ er

deny ing eac h and ev er y al leg ati on i n Sot o's peti ti on. On M ar ch 3, t he tr ial court rese t the hea ring to March 27 . On March 18, 2 008 , the Came ron Coun ty Dis t rict Atto rn ey , ano ther

ag ency l is ted i n Sot o's petiti on, f il ed a moti on f or conti nuanc e. The tr ial
cour t r eset the hear ing to Jul y 31, 2008. On Apr il 22, 2008, Soto filed an amended peti ti on f or expunction , and a hea ring w as set f or June 26, 20 08

. O n J u n e 26 , the trial court
re sc hedul ed th e hear ing to Jul y 31, 2008. T DP S did not rec eiv e notic e of the new date nor did i t w aiv e the re q uir ement of no ti ce. As a re sul t, TDPS did not par ti ci pate at t he J uly

31 expunctio n he aring during w hich th e trial court grante d t h e e xp unct ion of Soto 's arrest
re cor ds. Thi s a ppeal ens ued. II. D I S CUS S I ON T he p roced ures to b e f ollowed in an expunct ion proce edin g are set f orth in article 55.02 of the Tex as code of cr imi nal pr ocedu re
. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 55.02 (V er non Su pp. 2 008)

. Beca use the r ig ht t o ex punct ion i s a st atuto ry pr iv il eg e, t he peti ti oner

must sa ti sfy the pr ov is ion s o f arti cl e 55. 02 in or der for his ac ti on to be s ust ain ed. Ex parte Myers , 68 S. W .3d 229 , 232 (Tex. App. –T exarkana 200 2, no pet. ). Section 2 (c) of art ic le 55.02 pr ov ide s t hat "t he c our t .

. . s hal l g iv e re asona ble noti ce of t he hear ing to each

. . . ag ency

. . . named i n the p eti ti on" by ei ther ce rt ified mai l, r etur n r ecei pt r eq uest edW e n o te th a t w h e n a n e x p u n c tio n o r d e r is r e v e r s e d a n d s e t a s id e , t h e r e v e r s a l a p p lie s to a ll 1 a g e n c i e s in p o s s e s s i o n o f re l e v a n t c rim i n a l r e c o rd s
. Ex par t e El l i ot , 815 S. W

. 2d 2 51, 252 ( T ex. 199 1) ( per c u ria m ); Tex. D ep' t

of Pub. Saf

et y v. D eck , 95 4 S

. W

. 2d 10 8, 11 3 (T ex
. A pp
. –S an A nton i o 1 99 7, no pe t

. ).

3 or se cur e el ect ro nic mai l, el ect ro nic tr ansmi ss ion , or facsi mil e tr ansmi ss ion. T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . ar

t. 55.02, § 2( c)

. By i ts firs t i ss ue, TDPS conte nds that the tr ial court 's ex punct ion order should be set aside beca use T DPS w as no t provided no tice of the July 3 1 h earing pursua nt to article 55.02. See i

d. W e ag re e. TDPS is an a g ency named i n Sot o's peti ti on; t her efore, it w as enti tl ed to r eason abl e not ic e of the Jul y 31 h ear ing

. See i

d. H er e, t h e r e co rd d o es not show that TDPS r ecei v ed not ic e of the Jul y 31 h ear ing i n ac cor dance w it h the ex punct ion sta tute; ther efore, the ex punct ion or der must be s et as ide

. See Tex . Dep' t of Pub. Saf

ety v. Deck , 954 S.W .2d 1 08, 1 12- 13 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Ant oni o 1997, no p et.) ( conc lud ing that the t ri al cour

t er re d i n g ra nti ng a pe ti ti on for ex punct ion bec ause the a ppel lan t di d not
re cei v e not ic e that the ex punct ion hear ing w as re set ). W e sus tai n TDPS' s firs t i ss ue. Due to t he di spos it ion of TDPS' s fir st is sue, w e need not a ddr ess i ts sec ond is sue. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 7.1. III
. C ONCL US I ON W e rev e r s e a n d s e t a sid e th e exp u n ct io n ord e r an d rem a n d f o r pr o ce e d in gs
cons is tent w it h thi s o pin ion

. 1

NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Opinio n de liv ered and f iled this 26th day of Ma rc h, 20 09.