In re the Expunction of R.A., 417 S.W.3d 569

Background

R.A. was criminally tried on multiple charges, acquitted on most counts, and her attorneys were held in contempt by the trial judge, Judge Steven Lee Smith.
Two days after trial R.A. moved to expunge her criminal records; retired Judge Paxson (not assigned to the case) signed an expunction order (May 25). Judge Smith later partially rescinded that order and directed preparation of sealed transcripts for disciplinary use.
The State and El Paso County filed motions challenging the May 25/27 orders and Judge Smith held a June 10 hearing (defense counsel had actual notice but did not appear). Judge Smith entered a June 10 expunction granting R.A. relief but permitting temporary retention of records for use in ancillary proceedings (contempts, disciplinary matters, related civil suits).
R.A. appealed, arguing (among other things) that the later orders were void/collateral attacks, that partial expunction/retention was impermissible, that Judge Smith exceeded his assignment, and that she lacked notice and due process.
The court considered whether motions contesting the May 25 order were direct or collateral attacks, whether Article 55.02 authorized temporary retention for ancillary matters, and whether procedural/standing/jurisdictional defects or recusal failures voided the June 10 order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether later orders are an impermissible collateral attack on May 25 order	May 27/June 10 orders are collateral attacks on the May 25 expunction and thus void	State/County: their motions were timely direct attacks to modify/set aside the May 25/27 orders	Motions were timely direct attacks; Issue overruled — not an improper collateral attack
2. Whether June 10 order is an impermissible partial expunction	June 10 is a partial expunction (retains records) forbidden by Ex parte Elliott	Court: statutory provisions allow temporary retention for ancillary matters under Art. 55.02	Overruled — temporary retention authorized by statute; not the forbidden partial expunction in Elliott
3. Whether retention of records is impermissible	Retention denies full expunction remedy	State: retention is authorized by Art. 55.02 §§4(a)(1),(2)(B) for investigations or civil cases; necessary due to contempts/grievances	Overruled — trial court did not abuse discretion; retention authorized and reasonable
4. Whether Judge Smith exceeded his assignment authority	Smith was only assigned to criminal trial and lacked authority to rule on expunction/civil aspects	State: assignment expressly empowered Smith to hear the criminal cause and attendant matters; Art.55.02 permits filing in the trial court	Overruled — Judge Smith had authority under the assignment and Art.55.02 to hear the expunction motion
5. Standing of District Attorney/County to contest expunction	DA/County lack personal stake; briefs should be disregarded	State: statute requires notice and permits entities named as having records to defend/appeal; they were listed in petition	Overruled — DA and County have standing under Art.55.02 to participate and appeal
6. Whether R.A. received adequate notice/due process of June 10 hearing	Insufficient notice; no meaningful opportunity to be heard	State: lead counsel had actual notice but did not appear or seek continuance	Overruled — issue waived for failure to preserve; counsel had actual notice and did not object or move for continuance
7. Whether Judge Smith had duty to recuse for bias (attorneys held in contempt)	Smith was biased by having held defense counsel in contempt and thus must recuse sua sponte	State: recusal grounds may be waived if not timely raised; no constitutional disqualification alleged	Overruled — R.A. failed to file recusal motion; issue waived
8. Finality: Whether June 10 order is final and appealable	Order is not final because it leaves undefined ancillary matters, no deadline for destruction, and permits indefinite retention	State: Art.55.02 permits temporary retention and order disposes of rights; enforcement post-ancillary proceedings available	Overruled — court finds the June 10 order final and appealable; R.A. can move to enforce destruction after ancillary matters conclude

Key Cases Cited

PNS Stores, Inc. v. Rivera, 379 S.W.3d 267 (Tex. 2012) (distinguishes direct vs collateral attack on judgments)
Ex parte Elliott, 815 S.W.2d 251 (Tex. 1991) (partial expunctions that undermine uniform record management are impermissible)
Ex parte Eastland, 811 S.W.2d 571 (Tex. 1991) (judge exceeds assignment; acts beyond scope are void)
In re Union Pacific Resources Co., 969 S.W.2d 427 (Tex. 1998) (distinguishing bases and consequences of judicial disqualification/recusal)
Browning v. Prostok, 165 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2005) (definition of collateral attack)
Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (finality standard for appellate jurisdiction)
In re Doe, 397 S.W.3d 847 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2013) (procedures to enforce expunction orders after ancillary matters conclude)