Ex Parte E.M.P., 572 S.W.3d 361

E.M.P. filed a petition for expunction in March 2017 for a 2011 aggravated-robbery arrest, asserting no final conviction, no pending charge, and no court-ordered community supervision.
Lubbock County notified DPS of the petition; DPS filed an answer attaching the charging papers and an order showing deferred-adjudication community supervision for a misdemeanor deadly-conduct conviction.
The trial court set a hearing for June 23, 2017, but appears to have granted the expunction on the pleadings (no evidentiary hearing) and entered the expunction order on June 25, 2017.
DPS filed a restricted appeal within six months, arguing the record affirmatively showed court-ordered community supervision for an offense higher than a Class C misdemeanor and that E.M.P. presented no evidence entitling him to expunction.
The court concluded DPS qualified for restricted appeal (it did not participate in the decision-making event) and held the trial court erred in granting expunction on the pleadings because E.M.P. failed to prove entitlement; the expunction was reversed and denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (E.M.P.)	Defendant's Argument (DPS)	Held
Entitlement to restricted appeal (non‑participation)	DPS filed an answer, so it participated and cannot pursue a restricted appeal.	DPS did not appear at the hearing or otherwise participate in the decision-making event; filing an answer alone does not bar restricted review.	DPS entitled to restricted appeal; filing an answer did not constitute participation in the hearing that produced the judgment.
Whether trial court properly granted expunction on the pleadings	E.M.P. relied on his petition and contended statutory requirements for expunction were met.	DPS showed exhibits establishing court‑ordered deferred adjudication/community supervision for deadly conduct, and argued no evidentiary basis existed for expunction.	Trial court erred: expunction cannot be granted on pleadings; record shows community supervision for an offense above Class C, so E.M.P. failed to prove entitlement.

Alexander v. Lynda’s Boutique, 134 S.W.3d 845 (Tex. 2004) (restricted appeal timing and elements)
Clopton v. Pak, 66 S.W.3d 513 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001) (restricted-appeal requirements are jurisdictional)
Champion v. Estlow, 456 S.W.3d 363 (Tex. App.—Austin 2015) (face-of-the-record scope in restricted appeals)
Gold v. Gold, 145 S.W.3d 212 (Tex. 2004) (error on face of record required for restricted appeal)
Texaco, Inc. v. Cent. Power & Light Co., 925 S.W.2d 586 (Tex. 1996) (non‑participation focuses on the decision‑making event)
Pike-Grant v. Grant, 447 S.W.3d 884 (Tex. 2014) (liberal construction of non‑participation in favor of right to appeal)
Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Moran, 949 S.W.2d 523 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997) (expunction cannot be granted solely on pleadings)
Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Steele, 56 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2001) (same)
Stoner v. Thompson, 578 S.W.2d 679 (Tex. 1979) (plaintiff must produce evidence; judgment not appropriate on pleadings alone)
Ex parte S.D., 457 S.W.3d 168 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2015) (standard of review for expunction orders)
In re O.R.T., 414 S.W.3d 330 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2013) (trial court abuses discretion if statutory expunction requirements are unmet)