Ex Parte Brett Scott, 476 S.W.3d 93

Appellant pleaded guilty in California to felony assault and received a suspended three‑year probated sentence; with California's permission he relocated to Texas to complete probation under interstate supervision.
California later issued a warrant alleging a probation violation; Houston police received an abstracted extradition request and arrested appellant as a fugitive under the interstate compact.
Appellant refused to waive extradition and was booked; Harris County later moved to dismiss the extradition because the Interstate Commission took over processing.
California subsequently reached an agreement: the underlying guilty plea was withdrawn, a not‑guilty plea entered, and appellant was released from penalties (with the conviction remaining part of the public file).
Appellant petitioned in Texas to expunge the record of his fugitive arrest; the Harris County DA opposed, arguing the arrest did not qualify for expunction under Article 55.01. The trial court denied the petition and this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a fugitive arrest in Texas qualifies as an "arrest for the commission of a felony or misdemeanor" under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 55.01(a)	Appellant: the arrest was "for" a felony because it was directly related to a California felony prosecution.	DA: The arrest was an extradition/fugitive arrest, not an arrest "for" a Texas felony or misdemeanor; art. 55.01 requires an arrest made for commission of an offense.	Court: Affirmed — fugitive extradition arrest does not meet Article 55.01's requirement because it was not an arrest "for" commission of an offense in Texas.
Whether the form or manner of processing (booking, detention) makes the arrest eligible for expunction	Appellant: arrest and processing mirrored ordinary criminal arrests, so should qualify.	DA: Statute focuses on the type/purpose of arrest, not procedural similarities.	Court: Rejected — manner of processing irrelevant; statute requires arrest "for" commission of offense.

Presidio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Scott, 309 S.W.3d 927 (Tex. 2010) (court must give effect to plain statutory text)
Ex parte Clubb, 447 S.W.2d 185 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969) (fugitive/extradition arrest is distinct from a penal arrest under state law)
Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282 (1978) (extradition should be a summary administrative process for the asylum state)
Lott v. State, 864 S.W.2d 152 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993) (asylum state may limit review to facial validity of extradition documents and identity)
Ex parte Flores, 548 S.W.2d 31 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (asylum state not to decide guilt or probable cause for demanding state's charges)