Antonio Sepeda v. State, 14-15-00728-CV

Antonio Sepeda, incarcerated, filed a pro se petition to expunge records of a 2009 arrest for terroristic threat (among other misdemeanor allegations) asserting those charges were dismissed and did not result in conviction.
The terroristic-threat allegation was one of the bases for a Magistrate’s Emergency Protective Order dated October 12, 2009; Sepeda later pleaded guilty to a felony violation of that protective order and received an eight-year sentence.
Sepeda alleged the terroristic-threat charge was dismissed April 16, 2010, but submitted no evidentiary proof of a dismissal meeting article 55.01 requirements; his unsworn declaration did not provide admissible evidence.
The trial court set notice of a hearing, did not conduct an oral hearing, and ultimately signed an order denying expunction on August 12, 2015; the court later adopted the State’s proposed findings concluding statutory requirements were not met.
Sepeda also moved to appear telephonically; the trial court ruled without an oral hearing. On appeal he challenged denial of expunction and denial of his telephonic/oral-hearing request.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sepeda was entitled to expunction of arrest records for the terroristic-threat charge under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 55.01(a)(2)	Sepeda: the charge was dismissed and did not result in conviction, so statutory conditions for expunction are met	State: Sepeda failed to prove dismissal or satisfaction of statutory requirements; pleadings are not evidence	Court: Denial affirmed — Sepeda bore burden to prove statutory requirements and failed to provide evidence
Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying Sepeda’s request for an oral/telephonic hearing	Sepeda: requested telephonic participation; asserted physical presence unnecessary and asked to be allowed by phone if required	State/Trial court: court could decide on the pleadings and documentary record; Sepeda did not identify testimony or evidence he would provide	Court: No abuse of discretion — court could rule without hearing when record sufficed; any error harmless because no showing what testimony would have been

Harris Cnty. Dist. Attorney’s Office v. J.T.S., 807 S.W.2d 572 (Tex. 1991) (statutory intent behind expunction for wrongful arrests)
Texas Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. J.H.J., 274 S.W.3d 803 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (trial court’s limited equitable power and abuse-of-discretion review on expunction)
In re Expunction, 465 S.W.3d 283 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015) (petitioner bears burden to prove statutory entitlement in civil expunction proceeding)
Ex parte Scott, 476 S.W.3d 93 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015) (article 55.01 sets many prerequisites before expunction relief is available)