Ex Parte D.T., 07-20-00162-CV

D.T. was convicted of DWI in 2013 (Randall County); sentence probated. He was arrested for a second DWI in January 2018 (Lubbock County) and acquitted by a jury in October 2019.
D.T. petitioned to expunge the 2018 arrest under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 55.01(a)(1)(A). The Department of Public Safety (DPS) and the State answered with general denials and attached records, arguing the art. 55.01(c) criminal‑episode exception applied because the 2013 conviction and 2018 arrest arose from the same criminal episode.
The trial court held a brief, non‑evidentiary hearing (DPS absent) and granted expunction on January 22, 2020; DPS filed a restricted appeal.
On appeal the court considered whether DPS satisfied restricted‑appeal prerequisites and whether error was apparent on the face of the record.
The court held the trial court abused its discretion by granting expunction without any evidence admitted (documents attached to pleadings were not offered/admitted and judicial notice was not taken) and reversed and remanded for further proceedings; materials turned over under the expunction order must be returned to submitting agencies.

Issue	D.T.'s Argument	DPS/State's Argument	Held
Whether art. 55.01(c) (criminal‑episode exception) bars expunction	D.T.: acquittal under art. 55.01(a)(1)(A) entitles him to expunction	DPS/State: 2013 conviction + 2018 arrest are part of same criminal episode, so art. 55.01(c) prohibits expunction	Court did not resolve the merits because expunction was granted without admissible evidence; reversed and remanded for proper fact development
Whether the trial court could grant expunction without evidence or formal proof	D.T.: relied on pleadings and counsel argument at the brief hearing	DPS/State: general denial put D.T. to his proof; attached documents were not evidence unless offered and admitted; judicial notice requires proof	Court: petitioner must present admissible evidence; pleadings/attachments not admitted at hearing are insufficient; granting relief without evidence was an abuse of discretion
Whether DPS met restricted‑appeal requirements and whether error is apparent on the face of the record	DPS: timely filed restricted appeal, did not participate in hearing, filed no post‑judgment motions, and error appears on face of record	D.T.: (implicit) might contend appeal improper if DPS participated or did not meet requirements	Court: DPS satisfied the jurisdictional elements for a restricted appeal and shown error apparent on face of record; appeal permitted

Pike-Grant v. Grant, 447 S.W.3d 884 (Tex. 2014) (sets out restricted‑appeal elements)
Ex parte E.H., 602 S.W.3d 486 (Tex. 2020) (error‑on‑face‑of‑record is nonjurisdictional; appellate framework for restricted appeals)
State v. T.S.N., 547 S.W.3d 617 (Tex. 2018) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard; legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
Ex parte Wilson, 224 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007) (court may decide expunction without live testimony only if it has all necessary information in the record)
Freedom Commc’ns, Inc. v. Coronado, 372 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. 2012) (judicial notice of another court’s records requires proof/certified copies)
Ex parte E.M.P., 572 S.W.3d 361 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2019) (petitioner bears burden to prove statutory requirements for expunction)
Banda v. Garcia, 955 S.W.2d 270 (Tex. 1997) (attorney statements are not evidence unless made under oath)