Ex Parte Ronald Darnell Cephus
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 9775
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Ronald Darnell Cephus, a pro se inmate, petitioned under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 55.01 to expunge records from seven criminal causes in Harris County.
- Five of the listed matters resulted in final convictions; two indictments were dismissed but involved the same substantive charges for which Cephus was convicted.
- Cephus alleged some indictments were void (no arrest warrant) and claimed entitlement to expunction; he sought a bench warrant/oral hearing which the trial court denied and ruled on the petition.
- The trial court denied the expunction petition; Cephus appealed. His initial appellate brief was struck; an amended brief was noncompliant but construed liberally by the court.
- The appellate court reviewed whether statutory requirements for expunction were met, whether judgments or indictments were void, and whether denial of an oral hearing/bench warrant violated due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cephus) | Defendant's Argument (State/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Eligibility for expunction where convictions exist | Indictments were dismissed or void; seeks expunction of records | Article 55.01 requires no final conviction or qualifying pardon; Cephus has final convictions | Denied — Cephus convicted on five charges; dismissals do not entitle him to expunction |
| 2. Waiver for failure to brief earlier convictions | (Implicit) all listed matters should be expunged | Cephus did not challenge or supply evidence for older convictions in brief or petition | Waived — failure to address or prove compliance with statute forfeits appellate review |
| 3. Collateral attack on final judgment via expunction (voidness claim) | Conviction in cause no. 1003667 void for lack of arrest warrant; can be attacked in expunction proceeding | Collateral attack on final judgment not allowed in expunction; only a void judgment may be attacked and record shows none are void | Denied — conviction is final and not shown void; expunction is improper as collateral attack |
| 4. Denial of bench warrant/oral hearing due process claim | Denial of request to appear and have oral hearing violated due process | Trial court may rule without oral hearing; inmates have no absolute right to appear; court may balance factors when deciding bench warrants | Denied — no abuse of discretion; written submissions sufficed and Cephus failed to show prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.G., 388 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2012) (petitioner bears burden to prove statutory expunction requirements)
- Texas Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. J.H.J., 274 S.W.3d 803 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (trial court must strictly comply with statutory expunction requirements)
- Ex parte Reed, 343 S.W.3d 306 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (review of expunction denial for abuse of discretion)
- Harris Cnty. Dist. Attorney’s Office v. J.T.S., 807 S.W.2d 572 (Tex. 1991) (legislative intent to permit expunction for wrongful arrests)
- In re Retzlaff, 345 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2011) (collateral attack on final judgment not permissible in expunction proceeding)
- In re Z.L.T., 124 S.W.3d 163 (Tex. 2003) (inmate has no absolute right to personal appearance; bench-warrant decisions rest in trial court discretion)