Ex parte K.R.K., 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 9736

On Nov. 6, 2009, K.R.K. was arrested for felony possession of a controlled substance (<1g) and misdemeanor marijuana possession; he pleaded to the misdemeanor and received deferred adjudication.
The felony charge was refused/dismissed by the district attorney; the statute of limitations for the felony expired on Nov. 6, 2012.
On Mar. 28, 2013, K.R.K. filed a petition to expunge records related to the felony possession; the trial court denied the petition on May 7, 2013.
K.R.K. argued the amended expunction statute (article 55.01(a)) allows expunction of individual offenses arising from the same arrest (legislative change from “any” to “the”).
The State argued the statute is arrest-based and intended to clear records of arrested persons only when statutory criteria are met.
The appellate court held K.R.K. failed to prove every statutory requirement for expunction (including effects of his deferred adjudication) and affirmed the denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether art. 55.01(a) permits expunging individual offenses from a multi-charge arrest	The statute’s change from “any” to “the” shows Legislature intended offenses from the same arrest to be divisible for expunction	The statute is arrest-focused; expunction applies to the arrest event, not individual charges arising from it	Court held petitioner failed to meet statutory requirements and reaffirmed that art. 55.01 does not permit expunging individual offenses from a multi-charge arrest absent satisfying all statutory conditions
Whether petitioner met burden of proof for expunction when he received deferred adjudication on a related charge	N/A — petitioner asserted eligibility based on dismissal/statute expiration for felony	State contested sufficiency of proof and relied on effect of deferred adjudication on eligibility	Held petitioner failed to produce evidence beyond his petition to satisfy article 55.01(a); deferred adjudication on related offense barred relief and trial court did not err

Ex parte Green, 373 S.W.3d 111 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012) (standard of review and burden for expunction)
Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Wallace, 63 S.W.3d 805 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001) (misdemeanor deferred-adjudication constitutes court-ordered community supervision for expunction purposes)
Harris Cnty. Dist. Attorney’s Office v. J.T.S., 807 S.W.2d 572 (Tex. 1991) (expunction as remedy to clear records of wrongful arrests)
Harris Cnty. Dist. Attorney’s Office v. D.W.B., 860 S.W.2d 719 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993) (arrest-based approach to expunction)
T.C.R. v. Bell Cnty. Dist. Attorney’s Office, 305 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. App.—Austin 2009) (expunction is a statutory privilege; petitioner must satisfy each statutory condition)
Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Dicken, 415 S.W.3d 476 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013) (statute does not authorize expunction of individual offenses arising from a single arrest)
Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. J.H.J., 274 S.W.3d 803 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (each statutory provision for expunction is mandatory)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (de novo review for legal questions)
City of Rockwall v. Hughes, 246 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. 2008) (statutory construction principles)
City of San Antonio v. Caruso, 350 S.W.3d 247 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011) (statutory construction principles)