Court Opinion

ID: 9939659
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-12 10:11:04.36057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:43.034521
License: Public Domain

In the
        Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
         at Fort Worth
     ___________________________
          No. 02-23-00231-CV
     ___________________________

             EX PARTE E.A.

  On Appeal from the 16th District Court
        Denton County, Texas
      Trial Court No. 22-6468-16

    Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ.
   Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr
                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                   I. Introduction

       Appellant E.A. appeals from the trial court’s expunction order. In her sole

issue, Appellant argues that the trial court erred by denying her petition for

expunction under Article 55.01(a)(2)(B) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. We

will reverse.

                                  II. Background

       In February 2013, over a decade ago, Appellant was arrested for the felony

offense of diversion of a controlled substance. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann.

§ 481.1285. The affidavit for the arrest warrant states that the offense occurred on or

about October 25, 2012. The record also contains an arrest-warrant affidavit for the

felony offense of money laundering over $100,000 and under $200,000 that also

occurred on or about October 25, 2012. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 34.02(e). But

Appellant was not initially arrested based on that affidavit; rather, she was indicted

sometime later for the money-laundering offense and was arrested after the

indictment.

       Pursuant to plea negotiations, Appellant was placed on deferred adjudication

for the diversion offense, and the State dismissed the money-laundering offense. After

completing deferred adjudication, Appellant filed a petition to expunge the arrest

records of the money-laundering offense under Article 55.01(a)(2)(B) of the Texas

                                          2
Code of Criminal Procedure. After a hearing, the trial court signed an order denying

Appellant’s petition for expunction. This appeal followed.

                                   III. Discussion

      Appellant argues in her sole issue that the trial court erred by denying her

expunction petition because she satisfied the requirements of Article 55.01(a)(2)(B).

A. Standard of Review

      An expunction proceeding is a civil matter even though the expunction statute

appears in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Ex parte Green, 373 S.W.3d 111,

113 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, no pet.); see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art.

55.01. A trial court’s expunction order is reviewed for abuse of discretion, but a

statute’s meaning is a question of law reviewed de novo. Ex parte R.P.G.P.,

623 S.W.3d 313, 317 (Tex. 2021).

B. Applicable Law

      Article 55.01(a)(2)(B) provides:

      (a) A person who has been placed under a custodial or noncustodial
      arrest for commission of either a felony or misdemeanor is entitled to
      have all records and files relating to the arrest expunged if:

             ...

             (2) the person has been released and the charge, if any, has not
             resulted in a final conviction and is no longer pending and there
             was no court-ordered community supervision under Chapter 42A
             for the offense, unless the offense is a Class C misdemeanor,
             provided that:

                    ...

                                           3
                    (B) prosecution of the person for the offense for which the
                    person was arrested is no longer possible because the
                    limitations period has expired.

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art 55.01(a)(2)(B).

C. Analysis

      The State’s position is that Appellant is not entitled to expunction because her

money-laundering arrest “arose out of the same arrest and criminal episode as her

charge for diversion of a controlled substance.”

      In R.P.G.P., a case on which Appellant relies, the Texas Supreme Court

considered “whether an arrest involving multiple offenses is divisible for purposes of

expunging records under Article 55.01.” 623 S.W.3d at 314. R.P.G.P. was charged

with misdemeanor driving while intoxicated and misdemeanor possession. Id. at 315.

R.P.G.P. pleaded no contest to the possession charge and completed deferred

adjudication. Id. The DWI charge was dismissed after R.P.G.P. completed pretrial

intervention, after which R.P.G.P. filed a petition to expunge the DWI arrest records

under Article 55.01(a)(2)(A)(ii)(c). 1 Id. The trial court denied the petition, and the

court of appeals affirmed. Id.

      1
       Article 55.01(a)(2)(A) provides for expunction under a variety of circumstances
that—unlike subsection (a)(2)(B)—do not turn on whether limitations have expired.
Subarticle (a)(2)(A)(ii)(c), which was the basis of R.P.G.P.’s petition, provides for
expunction if an indictment or information is later dismissed because the arrestee
completed an authorized pretrial-intervention program. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc.
Ann. art. 55.01(a)(2)(A).

                                          4
       Reversing and holding that R.P.G.P. was entitled to expunction, the Court

noted that “[m]ost appellate courts have favored an ‘arrest-based’ construction . . .

that treats the offenses collectively over an ‘offense-based’ approach that considers

the offenses individually for expunction purposes.” Id. at 314. The Court concluded,

though, that Article 55.01(a)(2) is an offense-based expunction provision under which

“misdemeanor offenses are eligible for expunction on an individual basis,” thereby

rejecting the “all-or-nothing [arrest-based] approach.” Id. at 315, 318. The Court

explained that subarticle (a)(2) links an arrest to a single offense and that “[t]he use of

‘the’ in referring to ‘the charge’ and ‘the offense’ indicates the Legislature . . . intended

to tie an arrest to a single offense under Article 55.01(a)(2).” Id. at 322. Although the

Court held that “subarticles (a)(2) and (a)(2)(A)” are “offense-based provisions with

regard to misdemeanors but arrest-based with respect to felonies,” id. at 325, it did

not specifically address—or even mention—Article 55.01(a)(2)(B). The State argues

that R.P.G.P. is distinguishable because that case involved a misdemeanor offense and

was decided under Article 55.01(a)(2)(A), not (B).

       But after R.P.G.P. was decided, our sister court in Houston used R.P.G.P.’s

reasoning in allowing a felony expunction under Article 55.01(a)(2)(B), thus rejecting

the substance of the State’s argument here. Ex parte R.J.F., 640 S.W.3d 365, 369–

70 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2022, no pet.). In that case, the appellant was

arrested in 2007 for possession of a controlled substance (a state-jail felony) and

possession with intent to deliver drug paraphernalia (a misdemeanor). Id. at 366. The

                                             5
appellant pleaded no contest to the misdemeanor charge, and the State dismissed the

felony charge because “[t]he Defendant was convicted in another case.” Id. After

limitations had run, the appellant petitioned to have the felony charge expunged under

Article 55.01(a)(2)(B)—a provision that the court pointed out is a “separate option for

seeking expunction, completely distinct from (a)(2)(A)” and to which (a)(2)(A)’s

strictures do not apply. Id. at 369 (cleaned up). Based on R.P.G.P. and statutory

analysis, the court held that Article 55.01(a)(2)(B) is also offense-based, not arrest-

based. Id. at 370.

       “Because the language under (a)(2) is offense-based, see R.P.G.P., 623 S.W.3d at

322–23, an applicant qualifies for expunction of an offense under (a)(2)(B) ‘provided

that’ ‘prosecution of the person for the offense for which the person was arrested is

no longer possible because the limitations period has expired.’” Id. at 369; Tex. Code

Crim Proc. Ann. art. 55.01(a)(2)(B). The court concluded that “[l]ike the language

under (a)(2), the language under (a)(2)(B) ties an ‘arrest’ to a single offense.” R.J.F.,

640 S.W.3d at 369–70. The court also reasoned that subarticle (a)(2)(B) lacks any of

(a)(2)(A)’s language limiting expunction of felonies, nor does it track (a)(1)’s language

limiting expunction of charges arising out of the same criminal episode as a final

conviction. Id. at 370. The court thus held that the appellant was entitled to

expunction of the felony arrest records under (a)(2)(B). Id.

       The State argues that the R.J.F. court got it wrong. But we agree with our sister

court’s reasoning. In R.P.G.P., the Court explicitly held that subarticle (a)(2) is an

                                           6
offense-based expunction provision. 623 S.W.3d at 316. Although the R.P.G.P. court

held that Article 55.01(a)(2)(A) is offense-based for misdemeanors but arrest-based

for felonies, Article 55.01(a)(2)(B) does not distinguish between misdemeanors and

felonies. Compare Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 55.01(a)(2)(A) with art.

55.01(a)(2)(B). We hold that Article 55.01(a)(2)(B) is an offense-based expunction

provision. R.J.F., 640 S.W.3d at 370.

      Under Article 55.01(a)(2)(B), Appellant is entitled to expunction of her money-

laundering arrest records if the charge has not resulted in a final conviction, is no

longer pending, and there was no court-ordered community supervision for the

offense—provided that prosecution for the offense is no longer possible because

limitations has expired. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 55.01(a)(2)(B); see also id. art.

12.01(3)(E) (providing seven-year limitation period for money laundering). The record

shows that all these conditions have been met. We sustain Appellant’s sole issue.

                                    IV. Conclusion

      Because we sustain Appellant’s sole issue, we reverse the trial court’s order

denying Appellant’s petition for expunction of records related to her arrest for money

laundering and remand to the trial court to grant the petition.

                                                       /s/ Elizabeth Kerr
                                                       Elizabeth Kerr
                                                       Justice

Delivered: February 8, 2024

                                            7