Ex Parte A.G., 13-20-00176-CV

In December 2019, A.G. petitioned to expunge a May 22, 1988 arrest for possession of marijuana (Class B misdemeanor) that the docket shows was dismissed on September 22, 1989 “by State’s motion pursuant to plea on assault 88-CCR-1143-A.”
A.G. asserts the assault plea (cause no. 88-CCR-1143-A) arose from a separate December 30, 1987 arrest in San Benito and thus the marijuana arrest is independently eligible for expunction.
A.G. submitted a verified petition, proposed expunction order, and motions to appear by phone or obtain a bench warrant; the trial court set a hearing for March 12, 2020, but A.G. did not appear (no reporter’s record exists).
The Cameron County DA appeared at the hearing and entered a general denial; the trial court denied the petition and later found A.G. failed to present competent evidence beyond his verified pleading.
On appeal, the court applied recent Texas Supreme Court guidance regarding expunction eligibility for misdemeanors and reversed and remanded for a new hearing in the interest of justice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 1988 marijuana arrest must be expunged	A.G.: the marijuana charge was dismissed by state motion and the assault plea was for a distinct arrest, so marijuana arrest meets Article 55.01 requirements	DA: entered general denial; trial court found petitioner failed to appear and produced no competent evidence beyond a verified pleading	Court reversed and remanded for a new hearing under controlling law allowing misdemeanor offenses to be evaluated individually (per subsequent Supreme Court guidance)
Whether A.G.'s due-process right to participate was violated	A.G.: trial court denied his request to appear by phone/issue bench warrant and he was deprived of participation	Trial court: noted petitioner failed to appear; no reporter’s record; DA appeared	Court did not decide this issue (not addressed because expunction disposition was dispositive)

Ex parte E.H., 602 S.W.3d 486 (Tex. 2020) (expunction is a statutory privilege; petitioner bears burden to prove statutory conditions)
Ex parte K.R.K., 446 S.W.3d 540 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014, no pet.) (verified petition alone may be insufficient to carry petitioner's burden)
Ex parte Guajardo, 70 S.W.3d 202 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, no pet.) (allegations in a petition are not evidence)
State v. T.S.N., 547 S.W.3d 617 (Tex. 2018) (expunction proceedings are civil in nature)
In re Geomet Recycling LLC, 578 S.W.3d 82 (Tex. 2019) (courts may not add equitable exceptions to statutory requirements)