In re the Expunction of D.W.H.
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 11625
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- In June 2008 police responded to a missing‑student report; the missing student (B.M.) was later seen leaving the home of D.W.H., a high‑school teacher; she reported inappropriate sexual contact. Police obtained an arrest warrant for improper relationship between educator and student and search warrants for the residence and electronic devices.
- During execution of the search warrants officers located two gun safes; one was opened the next day (June 12) and officers found unregistered weapons and explosive/munition components. ATF was notified, executed a federal search warrant, and seized additional prohibited items.
- Two prosecutions resulted: a state charge (improper relationship) that was later no‑billed by the Tarrant County grand jury, and a federal conviction for possession of an unregistered firearm (to which D.W.H. pled guilty and was placed on probation).
- D.W.H. filed a petition to expunge arrest records under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 55.01(a)(2); the trial court denied the petition based on the agreed statement of facts submitted under Tex. R. Civ. P. 263.
- The court of appeals reviewed de novo whether the trial court properly applied law to the agreed facts (Rule 263 agreed facts control) and affirmed, holding the federal conviction arose out of the same transaction as the arrest.
Issues
| Issue | D.W.H.'s Argument | District Attorney's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying expunction under art. 55.01(a)(2) | The federal weapons conviction did not "arise out of the same transaction" as the state arrest, so expunction should be allowed | The weapons conviction arose directly from the same arrest/investigation; Article 55.01 bars expunction when a felony arising out of the same transaction was charged/convicted | Court held the federal offense arose out of the same transaction; expunction denied |
| Whether trial court was required to file written findings of fact/conclusions under Tex. R. Civ. P. 296/297 | Requested findings; argued entitlement | State argued findings were inappropriate because case was submitted on agreed facts under Rule 263 | Court held no written findings required for cases submitted on agreed facts; no error |
| Which version of Art. 55.01 applies | (Implicit) 2011 amendments apply to petitions filed after Sept. 1, 2011 | (State) same | Court applied 2011 amended Article 55.01 because petition was filed after the amendment's effective date |
| Construction of phrase "arising out of the same transaction" in art. 55.01(a)(2)(A) | (Appellant/dissent) the phrase should be read narrowly; offenses that ripen at distinct times (possession discovered later) are not the same transaction | (Majority) the nexus here is direct: weapons were discovered because of the search executed as part of the arrest investigation; statute is arrest‑based | Majority treated statute as arrest‑based and concluded the weapons conviction arose from the same transaction; dissent argued otherwise |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.G., 417 S.W.3d 652 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2013) (expunction is statutory and petitioner bears burden of proof)
- Travis County Dist. Attorney v. M.M., 354 S.W.3d 920 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011) (Article 55.01 construed as arrest‑based; individual charges from same arrest not separately expungible)
- Patton v. Porterfield, 411 S.W.3d 147 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013) (agreed statement of facts under Rule 263 treated as special verdict; appellate review limited to law applied to agreed facts)
- Tex. Dep’t of Public Safety v. Dicken, 415 S.W.3d 476 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013) (expunction statute construed as arrest‑based; cannot expunge individual offenses arising from same arrest)
- S.J. v. State, 438 S.W.3d 838 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014) (expunction scheme is arrest‑based; present precedent binding on transfer)
- Kalish v. State, 662 S.W.2d 595 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (definition of "same transaction" in related context; possession may be treated differently because it ripens on discovery)
- Williams v. State, 301 S.W.3d 675 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (definition of "same criminal transaction" as continuous, rapid sequence of unbroken events)
- Cobb v. State, 85 S.W.3d 258 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (criminal episode concept under Penal Code §3.01)