### NUM BER 13-07- 0040 6-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 OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellan t,
v . CA RL OS J A

VIEREC HEV ERR

Y, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 2 4th D istrict Co urt of Vict oria Co un ty , T exas . 

## O P I N I O N Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Ga rza an d Be na v ide s

Op in io n b y

J u st ic e Ga rza Appel lan t, the S tate of Tex as, appeal s from the tr ial court ’s granti ng of a pet it ion for
ex punct ion of re cords filed by appel lee , Car los Jav ier Eche v er ry . By si x i ss ues, the Stat e arg ues that the t ri al cour t er ro neous ly

g ra nted Eche v er ry ’s peti ti on. W e rev erse and render jud g ment den y ing the ex punct ion

.T h e in d ic tm e n t a lle g e d th a t E c h e v e r r y, a n o ff ic e r o fth e V ic to r ia P o lic e D e p a r tm e n t, in te n t i o n a lly 1 subj ect ed Ann Sot o t o m i st r eat m ent and eff ect uat ed a n un l awf ul t r aff i c st op f or t he pur pose ofm aki ng se xual adv ances. The i n d i c t m e n t a l s o p r o v i d e d t h a t E c h e v e r r y , d u r i n g t h e t r a ff i c s t o p , s u b j e c t e d S o t o t o s e x ual har assm ent by t ouchi ng h er br east wi t hout herc on s en t

. T he i ndi ct m ent al l eged t hat t he cr i m i nal epi sode t r anspi r ed o n orabo ut August 20, 200 6.

Echev er r y ’ s or i gi nal pet i t i on was not cont ai ned i n t he r ecor d. 2 2

I. F A CT UA L A ND P ROC EDURA L B A CKGRO UND On A pr il 19, 2007, Eche v er ry w as charg ed by

i ndi ctment w it h tw o c ounts of off ic ial opp ression, a misde me ano r. See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 39. 03 ( Ver non 200 3)

. On M ay 1 23, 2 007, after a j ur

y tr ial , Ec hev er ry

w as acq uit ted of all ch arg es. The t ri al cour t s ig ned it s j udg ment of ac q uit tal on J une 11 , 2 0 0 7

. O n J une 14, 2007, Ec hev er ry fil ed an
unv er ified amended peti ti on for ex punct ion and a not ic e of t he ex punct ion hear ing

. The 2 noti ce prov ide d tha t t he ex punct ion hear ing w oul d be conduc ted o n J une 15, 2007 at 1: 30 p.m. The tr ial co urt c onduc ted t he ex punct ion heari ng on June 15, 2007, and it si g ned an
order g ra nti ng ex punct ion on t he s ame day

. The Stat e ti mely fil ed i ts noti ce of appeal on June 25, 2 007. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.1. On J uly 19, 2007, the Stat e filed it s re q uest for findi ng s o f f actand conc lus ion s o f law

. The tr ial co urt den ied the Stat e’s r eq ueston Jul y 27, 2007, ass erti ng thatthe Stat e had not timel y

f il ed its req uestin accordance w it h rul e 296 of the rul es of ci v il procedu re . See T EX . R. C IV . P. 296 ( prov idi ng thata re q uestfor fin din g s o f f actand conc lus ion s o f law must be fil ed w it hin tw enty day s a fter t he j udg ment i s s ig ned)

. This appeal ens ued. II. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW A tr ial co urt’ s r uli ng on a n e x punct ion i s rev iew ed unde r an abus e of di sc re ti on sta ndard. Hei

ne v. Tex

. Dep ’

t of Pub. Saf

ety , 92 S.W .3d 642, 646 (Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 2002, p e t

. d e n i e d) ; se e T

ex. D ep’ t of Pub. Saf

ety v. Mor ale s , No

. 1 3 -0 7 -0 0 5 5 2 -C V , 2 0 0 8 T e x.3

App. LEX IS 3 898, at * 5 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti M ay 22, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op. ). A tr i a l c o u rt a b u s e s i t s d i s c r e t i o n w h e n i t a c t s w i t h o u t r e fe r e n c e t o g u i d i n g r u les and pr inc ipl es or

i f its ac ti ons ar e a rb it ra ry and unr eason abl e. Downer v. Aquam ar

ine Ope rators, In c. , 701 S.W .2d 238 , 241 -42 (Te x . 198 5). III . A N AL Y S IS By its f irst tw o issues, the St ate argues t h a t E c heverry : (1) failed to estab lish his ri g ht t o ex punct ion by

a preponderance of the ev ide nce; and (2 ) faile d to ref u te t he
ex cept ion to the r ig ht of ex pun ct io n c o n ta ine d i n ar ti cl e 55. 01( c) of the c ode of cr imi nal procedu re . See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC
. A NN . art. 55 .01 (c) (Verno n 20 06). Eche v erry cont ends that the e x punct ion st atute s a re r emedia l in nature and ar e i ntended to be
co n s t r u e d l i b e r a l l y ; t h e r e fo r e , b e c a u s e h e w a s a c q u i t t e d o f a l l c h a rg e s c o n t a i n e d i n the ind ic tment, he i s e nti tl ed to ex pung ement. Ec hev er ry furth er asser ts that the S tate faile d to prov e tha t i t i s p ursui ng furth er cr imi nal ch arg es ar is ing out of the c ri minal epi sode. a. A pp licab le L aw To be ent it led to an ex punct ion , t he pet it ion er has the burden of

prov ing thatal l the sta tutor y r eq uirements hav e been sat is fied. In r e Ex punct ion of C. V. , 214 S.W .3d 43, 4 4 (Tex . Ap p.–El Pas o 2006, no p et.) ; s e e B a r g a s v . Sta te , 1 6 4 S

. W

. 3 d 7 6 3 , 7 7 0 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2005, no p et.) ; see als o Mor ale s , 200 8 Tex . Ap p. LEX IS 3898, at * 5. “Th e trial court mu st strictly comp ly w ith the statu to ry p ro c e d u res for expunction , and it
com mits reversible error w hen it fa ils to comp ly .” Tex. Dep’ t of Pub. Safety v. Fredricks , 235 S. W .3d 2 75, 2 78 ( Tex . App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2007, no p et.)

. Ar ti cl e 55. 01 of the Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re se ts forth the rul es that a tri al cour t mus t app ly

i n det er mini ngSect i on 3

. 01 o ft he p enal code pr ov i des t hat a “ cr i m i nal epi sode” i s: 3 [ T ] he co m m i s s i on o f t w o or m ore o ffen s es , re ga rdl es s o f w he t he r t he ha rm i s di rec t ed t ow ard or i nf l i ct ed u pon m or e t han one per son o r i t em of pr oper t y , under t he f ol l owi ng ci r cum st ances:

( 1) t he off en se s ar e co m m i t t ed p ur su an t t o t he s am e t r an sa ct i on o r p ur su an t t o t wo or m or e t r ansact i ons t hat ar e connect ed or const i t ut e a com m on sch em e orpl an; or ( 2) t he o ff enses ar e t he r epeat ed co m m i ssi on o ft he sa m e orsi m i l ar off enses. T EX
. P EN AL C OD E A NN
. § 3

. 01 (Ve rno n 2 00 3). 4 a pers on’ s ri g ht to ex punct ion

. See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC
. A NN . a rt

. 5 5

. 0 1

. Sp e c if ic a ll y, article 55. 01(a ) prov ides, in relevant pa rt, that a person is entitled to expunction of an arrest
r e c o r d i f: (1 ) the p erson is tr ied for t he of fense for w hic h the person w as ar re ste d and is: (A) acquitted by the trial court, except as provided by Sub section (c) of this se cti on; o r

. . . . (2 ) each of the foll ow ing co ndi ti ons ex is t: (A ) an indi ctmentor i nformati on c harg ing the person w it h c ommis si on of a f elon y h as not b een p resen ted a gainst the p erson for an of fense arising out of

the tran saction for which the p erson w as arreste d for .

. . and: (i ) the l imi tati ons per iod ex pired befor e the date o n w hic h a peti ti on for ex punct ion w as filed under Ar ti cl e 55. 02;

. . . . (c ) A c our

t may not order

the exp u n ct io n of r ecords and fil es re lat ing to an ar re st for an off ense for w hic h a person is su bseq uentl y ac q uit ted, w hether by the tr ial co urt or

the cour t of cr imi nal appeal s, if the off ense for w hic h the person w as acq uit ted a ro se out o f a cr imi nal epi sode, as defined by Sec ti on 3.01, P e n a l Cod e, an d the person w as conv ic ted o f or remains su bje ct to prosec uti on for at l eastone other off ense occ ur rin g dur ing the cr imi nal epi sode. [ ]

35

Id. ar t. 55.01( a) (1 )( A) , ( a) (2 )( A) (i ), ( c)

. If a peti ti oner demons trates thathe h as sat is fied each of the req uirements under ar ti cl e 5 5 .0 1 o f the c ode of cr imi nal procedu re , t he tr ial court do es no t have any d iscretion to den y t he request for an expun ction; the cou rt must g ra nt t he req uest

. Hei

ne , 9 2 S. W .3 d at64 8 (cit in g Per due v. Tex. D ep’

t of Pub. Saf

ety , 32 S.W .3d 333 , 335 (Tex. App. –Sa n Ant onio 200 0, no pet. )). Mo re o ver, art icl e 55 .0 2 pro vide s t h e fo llo wing: Sec. 1. At the req uestof the d efendant and after noti ce to the s tate, the tr ial cour t presi din g ov er

the cas e in w hic h the def endant w as acq uit ted, if the tr ial court is a district court, or a district cou rt in the county in w hich th e trial court is l ocate d shall ente r an order of ex punct ion for a person enti tl ed to ex punct ion under

ar ti cl e 55. 01( a) (1 )( [A]) not lat er than the 30th day

after the date of acq uit tal

. . . . The defendant shal l prov ide to the d is tr ic t c our t al l of the informa tion required in a pe tition for expunction und er Sectio n 2(b).

. . . . Sec. 2.

. . . . (b ) The peti ti on mus t be v er ified and shal l inc lud e the f oll ow ing or an ex pla nati on for w hy one or more of t he follo w ing is not inc lud ed

. . . . T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC
. A NN . art. 55 .02 , §§ 1, 2(b) (Vernon Supp . 200 7). b. Discus sion At t he ex punct ion hear ing , Vi cto ri a C ounty D is tr ic t At to rn e y Stephen B. Ty ler tes ti fied th at hi s o ff ic e w as als o i nv est ig ati ng Ec hev er ry for: tamper ing w it h or

fabri cat ing phy si cal ev ide nce. That w oul d be the dest ru cti on of the v ide otape in hi s car . The abuse of of fici al capa ci ty

. That w oul d be uti li z ing hi s c ar i n a h ar ass ing manner

or st oppi ng a c it iz en w it h the car and har ass ment for his use of the te lep hone i n pursui ng a w oman notj obT he ch ar act er i z at i on o ft he ev ent s t r anspi r i ng on or abo ut August 20, 200 6, as a cr i m i nal epi sode 4 i s und i sput ed.

T y l e r’s te s ti m o n y th a t E c h e v e rr y is s ti l l s u b je c t t o p ro s e c u ti o n fo r, a m o n g o th e r th i n g s , t a m p e rin g w i th 5 p h y s i c a l e v id e n c e i s n o te w o rth y . S e e i d

. § 37

. 09( a) ( 1) ( Ver non Supp. 200 7) ( pr ov i di ng t hat “ [ a] per son c o m m i ts a n o ff e n s e i f, k n o w i n g th a t a n i n v e s ti g a ti o n o r o ff i c i a l p ro c e e d i n g is p e n d i n g o r i n p ro g re s s , h e . . . al t er s, dest r oy s, or conce al s any r ecor d, d oc um en t , o r t hi ng wi t h i nt ent t o i m pai r i t s v er i t y , l egi bi l i t y , or av ai l abi l i t y as ev i dence i n t he i nv est i gat i on o r off i ci al pr oceedi ng” )

. T he T exas Pena l C ode st at es t hat ta m p e rin g w i th p h y s i c a l e v i d e n c e is a th i rd d e g re e fe l o n y . I d. § 37. 09( c)

. Fur t her m or e, t he r ecor d r ef l ect s t hat n e ith e r a n in d ic tm e n t n o r a n in f o r m a tio n h a s b e e n p r e s e n te d r e g a r d in g th is o f f e n s e . T h e r e f o r e , a r tic le 55. 01( a) ( 2) ( A) ( i ) woul d be app l i cabl e, whi ch r equi r es t hat t he r el ev ant st at ut e ofl i m i t at i ons expi r e be f or e a t r i al c o u rt m a y g r a n t a p e ti ti o n fo r e x p u n c ti o n p u rs u a n t t o a rti c l e 5 5 .0 2

. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. § 5 5 .0 1 (a )( 2 )( A )( I) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 6 ); i d. a rt. 5 5 .0 2 (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 7 ); see a lso St at e v. Beam , 226 S. W

. 3d 3 92, 395 ( T ex. 2007) ( appr ov i ng of hol di ngs by t he D al l as C our t of Appeal s r equi r i ng “ a par t y seeki ng e xpunct i on t o pr ov e t hat t he l i m i t at i ons p er i od f or t he a ppl i cabl e of f ense— whet her m i sdem eanoror f el ony — has e xpi r ed bef or e f i l i ng t he p et i t i on” ) ( ci t i ng C ol lin Count

y C r im . D ist

. At t or

ney’ s O f f i ce v. D obson , 167 S

. W

. 3d 6 25, 627 (T e x . A p p .– D a l l a s 2 0 0 5 , n o p e t.); St at e v. Bhat , 12 7 S

. W

. 3d 43 5, 43 6 (T ex . A pp . –D al l as 20 04 , no pe t

. ))

.

B ecause t he cr i m i nal epi sode occur r ed o n orabo ut August 20, 200 6, t he l i m i t at i ons p er i od f or 6 char gi ng Echev er r y wi t h an add i t i onal m i sdem eanordoe s not end unt i l August 20, 200 8. M ore over , t he gener i c st at ut e of l i m i t at i ons per i od f or f el oni es i s t hr ee y ear s f r om t he d at e of t he co m m i ssi on o ft he o ff ense, th u s e x te n d i n g th e l i m i ta ti o n s p e rio d to A u g u s t 2 0 , 2 0 0 9

. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art

. 12

. 01 ( 6) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 7 ). 6 re lat ed. Each of thes e poss ibl e charg es ste mmed from the same cr imi nal epi sode occ ur ri ng on o r abo ut Au gust 20, 20 06. Tyl er later not ed th at th e investig ation w as ongoing, buthe did 4 not disclose precise ly

the c u rr e n t st age of

the investigation. He me rely state d tha t his off ic e may

pursu e f urther

charg es based on t his cr imi nal epi sode at an y poi nt du ri ng the sta tutor y per iod

. See id. art. 12.02 (V er non 2005) ( “A n i ndi ctmentof infor mati on for any

5 mis demeanor

may be pr esent ed w it hin tw o y ears from the d ate o f the c ommis si on of the off ense, and not a fterw ard.” ). Ec hev er ry di d not off er any ev ide nce or tes ti mony to re but the conte ntion s mad e by Ty ler. T he trial cou rt g rante d Eche v erry ’s p etition for expunction on Jun e 15 , 200 7. At this ti me, th e tw o- y ear

st atute o f li mita ti ons per iod for mi sdemeano rs had not ful ly r un. 6 Eche v er ry

has not direct ed us to, nor are w e aw ar e of, any

auth or it y

r eq uir ing the Stat e to7

cle a rly sp e cify w h ich ot h e r cri m e s a ss o cia te d wit h th e crim in a l e p iso d e it in te n d s t o ch a rge him w i th du r i ng th e l i mi ta ti on s pe r i od

. In fac t, Ec he v er r y bo r e th e bu rde n of prov ing his enti tl ement t o ex punct ion u n d e r arti cl e 55. 01. See i d. ar t. 55.01( a) (1 )( a) ; see a lso In re Expu nct ion of C. V. , 214 S.W .3d a t 44; Bar gas , 164 S.W .3d a t 770 ; Mo ra les , 2 0 0 8 T e x. App. LEXIS 3 8 9 8 , at * 5. Beca use he w as subj ectto prosec uti on for at l eastone other of fense occurring during the criminal episo de a nd beca use he failed to prod uce e v iden ce to t he c ontrary, E chev er ry w as not e li g ibl e for ex punct ion

. See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC
. A NN . art. 55.01( a) (1 )( A) , ( c)

. Eche v erry , howev er, argues tha t article 55. 02, section 1 pr o vid e s thatupo n his
re q uestfor e x punct ion and noti ce to t he St ate, itw as mandator y for t he tr ial co urt t o g ra nt his r eq uestbec ause he w as acq uit ted of all charg es cont ain ed in the or ig ina l ind ic tment. W e di sag re e. Ar ti cl e 55. 02, s ect ion 1 prov ide s th a t the tr ial co urt “ shal l enter an o rd er

of
ex punct ion for a person ent itled to expu nction und er article 55.0 1(a)(1)([A]) not l ater than the 30th dayafter

the date of the ac q uit tal .” I d. art. 55.02 , § 1 (em pha sis adde d). Article 55.02, se cti on 1 cl ear ly re ferenc es arti cl e 55.01( a) (1 )( A) , w hic h, as w e hav e al re ady st ated,
re q uired Ec hev er ry

to prov e that he w as not s ubj ectto further prosec uti on for at l eastone o th e r o ff ense ar is ing out of the c ri minal epi sode. Id. ; see id. ar t. 55 .0 1( a) ( 1) ( A) , (c). Beca use Eche v er rywa s s ti ll su bje ct to prosec uti on for at l eastone other off ense ar is ing out o f the c ri minal epi sode at t he ti me the tr ial co urt g ra nted h is p e ti ti o n for ex punct ion , Eche v er ry

w as not e nti tl ed to an e x punct ion of re cords pursuantto arti cl e 55. 02 of the code of cr imi nal procedu re . See i d. ar t. 55.02, § 1.8

Therefor e, ba sed on th e foreg oin g , w e c oncl ude th a t the tr ial co urt abu sed it s dis creti on in granti ng Ec hev er ry ’s peti ti on for ex punct ion

. See Fredricks , 235 S.W .3d a t 278; Hei ne , 92 S.W .3d at 646. Accordin gly , w e susta in the Sta te’s f irst and secon d issues. V. C ONCL US I ON Beca use w e hav e susta ine d the State’ s f irst and seco nd iss ues on appe al, w e need not addr ess the Stat e’s remaini ng four is sues . See T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.1. W e rev erse and
re nder j udg ment den y ing the ex punct ion

.

DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 21s t day

of Aug ust , 200 8.