Collin County District Attorney's Office v. Fourrier
453 S.W.3d 536
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- DA's Office appeals a trial court expunction grant for Hayden Selby Fourrier relating to arrest for theft and evading arrest.
- Fourrier was arrested July 20, 2011 for theft of property ($50–$500) and evading arrest; he pled guilty to evading arrest and received six months’ deferred adjudication community supervision and a fine.
- Fourrier petitioned to expunge all records and files related to the theft arrest; DA answered denying and requesting strict proof, arguing ineligibility due to dual theft/evading charges.
- Trial court granted expunction; DA moved for reconsideration; the issue centered on statutory requirements of Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 55.01.
- Court held expunction is a statutory privilege with strict requirements; petitioner bears burden; validity turns on whether the charge has not resulted in a final conviction and related subsections.
- Court concluded Fourrier’s admitted, unadjudicated theft offense under penal code §12.45 precluded expunction under art. 55.01(a)(2), making the theft charge final for expunction purposes; hence expunction was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fourrier met art. 55.01(a)(2) requirements for expunction. | Fourrier asserted final-conviction absence under (a)(2). | DA argued ineligibility due to pending/dismissed status and related dual charges. | Fourrier failed to prove entitlement; final-conviction condition not satisfied. |
| Whether the 12.45 admission precludes expunction under (a)(2)(A)(ii) or (a)(2)(B). | Argued dismissal rationale; sought expunction despite admission. | Admission under 12.45 creates a final conviction for purposes of expunction. | Admitted unadjudicated offense resulted in final conviction; expunction not available. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency standard; no mere scintilla)
- Ex parte S.C., 305 S.W.3d 258 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997) (expunction rights are statutory, not constitutional)
- Heine v. Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 92 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002) (burden on petitioner to prove statutory requirements)
- M.M., 354 S.W.3d 920 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011) (strict compliance with expunction statutes required)
- Dicken, 415 S.W.3d 476 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013) (expunction when law is misapplied; de novo review on issues of law)
- Lacafta, 965 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997) (expunction proper when statutory requirements strictly met)