A. S. v. Texas Department of Public Safety
03-15-00331-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 31, 2015Background
- A.S. appeals the district court’s denial of his expunction petition for five offenses charged between 1991 and 2009.
- Petition was filed under Texas Code Crim. Proc. art. 55.01(a)(2)(B) asserting entitlement because released, no final conviction or supervision, and statutes of limitations expired.
- A.S. filed pro se; he was incarcerated and had no legal representation during proceedings.
- The petition lacked several items required by Art. 55.02, § 2(b)(1)(E), (3), (4), (7), (8); A.S. acknowledged absence of the missing information.
- The district court set a hearing for April 23, 2015; A.S. requested telephonic attendance, which the court denied.
- At the hearing, A.S. neither appeared in person nor by counsel; the court found default and denied the petition for failing to meet statutory requirements, which the Texas Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petition satisfied all statutory requirements for expunction | A.S. maintained strict compliance with Article 55.01(a)(2)(B). | TDPS argued petition lacked essential information required by Article 55.02, § 2(b). | Petition deficient; district court did not abuse discretion in denial. |
| Whether denial of telephonic attendance violated rights or affected outcome | A.S. asserts right to present grievance with telephonic appearance when incarcerated. | Court could deny teleconference where petition deficient; appearance not guaranteed and record showed no other effective means. | No abuse of discretion; no reversible error based on appearance denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas Department of Pub. Safety v. Deck, 954 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997) (strict compliance required; partial compliance not enough)
- Carson v. State, 65 S.W.3d 774 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001) (expunction requires strict statutory compliance)
- T.C.R. v. Bell Cty. Dist. Atty’s Office, 305 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. App.—Austin 2009) (mandatory duty to grant if requirements are met; otherwise discretion)
- Heine v. Texas Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 92 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002) (abuse of discretion standard in expunction contexts)
- Aguilar v. Alvarado, 39 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999) (inmate appearance requests handled under discretion)
- Dodd v. Dodd, 17 S.W.3d 714 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000) (prisoner access to court via alternate means when personal appearance is denied)
- Armstrong v. Randle, 881 S.W.2d 53 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1994) (trial court should allow alternative appearance methods when necessary)
- In re Z.L.T., 124 S.W.3d 163 (Tex. 2003) (balancing test for prisoner attendance in civil proceedings)
- Byrd v. Attorney Gen., 877 S.W.2d 566 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1994) (prisoner access to courts through alternatives, not guaranteed personal appearance)