Ex Parte S.D., 457 S.W.3d 168

S.D. was arrested Dec. 6, 2008 and charged with DWI; the information was later amended to add reckless driving arising from same arrest.
In July 2009 S.D. pleaded guilty to reckless driving under a plea agreement and received 12 months deferred adjudication community supervision; the information was dismissed after discharge in July 2010.
In Jan. 2013 S.D. petitioned to expunge the DWI arrest records under article 55.01 and to nondisclose the reckless driving conviction under Gov’t Code §411.081(d).
The trial court granted both expunction of the DWI arrest records and nondisclosure of the reckless driving records; the State appealed only the expunction order.
The appellate court considered whether amended article 55.01(a)(2) permits expunging records for one offense arising from a multi-offense arrest when another charge from the same arrest resulted in court-ordered community supervision.
The court reversed the expunction of the DWI offense (denying expunction) and affirmed the nondisclosure order for reckless driving.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (S.D.)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether article 55.01 permits expunging records for one offense from a multi-offense arrest when another offense from the same arrest resulted in community supervision	The 2011 amendment supports an "offense-based" approach allowing selective expunction of the DWI charge despite disposition of the reckless driving charge	The statute remains "arrest-based"; expunction requires all charges arising from the same arrest to meet the statutory conditions, so expunction is barred because S.D. received community supervision for the related offense	Court held the statute is arrest-based; expunction denied for the DWI because S.D. received community supervision for the reckless-driving offense arising from the same arrest

Heine v. Texas Department of Public Safety, 92 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002) (standard for expunction review)
Travis County Dist. Attorney v. M.M., 354 S.W.3d 920 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011) (en banc) (expunction statutory requirements are mandatory and exclusive)
Tex. Dep’t of Public Safety v. Dicken, 415 S.W.3d 476 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013) (questions of law reviewed de novo)
In re O.R.T., 414 S.W.3d 330 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2013) (trial court abuses discretion if statutory prerequisites to expunction are not met)
S.J. v. State, 438 S.W.3d 838 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014) (chapter 55 treats an arrest — not individual charges — as the unit for expunction)
Ex parte S.C., 305 S.W.3d 258 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (expunction is a statutory privilege, not a common-law right)