Antonio Sepeda v. State, 14-15-00790-CV

Antonio Sepeda (incarcerated) petitioned pro se in Jan 2014 to expunge arrest records for a 2009 misdemeanor assault charge, asserting the charge was dismissed and did not result in conviction.
He requested to attend any hearing by telephone; the petition was set for hearing twice but Sepeda did not present admissible evidence or amend his petition to prove statutory entitlement.
The State answered, generally denying entitlement and arguing statutory requirements were unmet and no equitable relief was available.
On August 27, 2015 the trial court signed an order denying the expunction; later it adopted the State’s proposed findings concluding Sepeda failed to prove statutory eligibility and noting Sepeda’s assertions were not evidence.
Sepeda appealed, asserting (1) the court abused its discretion by denying the expunction and (2) the court abused its discretion by denying his request for an oral/telephonic hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sepeda proved entitlement to expunction under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 55.01(a)(2)	Sepeda: arrest/charges were dismissed, no conviction; pleadings establish eligibility	State: Sepeda failed to meet strict statutory requirements and did not prove elements by admissible evidence	Court: Held Sepeda failed to carry burden; denial affirmed (no abuse of discretion)
Whether trial court erred by not allowing Sepeda to participate orally/by phone at hearing	Sepeda: requested telephonic attendance; contends denial prevented him from presenting his case	State: no indication Sepeda was prevented from presenting evidence; he said presence unnecessary and offered no proposed testimony	Court: Denial not an abuse of discretion; bench could rule on pleadings and record; any error harmless because no proffer of testimony

Ex parte Cephus, 410 S.W.3d 418 (discusses expunction purpose, burden of proof, and inmate appearance rights)
In re Expunction, 465 S.W.3d 283 (petitioner bears burden to prove statutory entitlement)
Texas Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. J.H.J., 274 S.W.3d 803 (trial court must strictly follow statutory expunction requirements; review for abuse of discretion)
Perdue v. Texas Dep’t of Public Safety, 32 S.W.3d 333 (applicant must satisfy statutory requirements; court cannot grant expunction beyond statute)
Ex parte Scott, 476 S.W.3d 93 (article 55.01 sets many requirements before relief may be granted)
Collin Cnty. Dist. Attorney’s Office v. Fourrier, 453 S.W.3d 536 (pleadings are not evidence in expunction proceedings)
Harris Cnty. Dist. Attorney’s Office v. J.T.S., 807 S.W.2d 572 (legislative intent permitting expunction of wrongful arrests)
Ex parte Current, 877 S.W.2d 833 (a court may decide expunctions on the record without live testimony)