in the Matter of the Expunction of A. L., 11-20-00048-CV

Appellant A.L. was charged in 2018 with felony aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (family violence) and entered a negotiated plea resulting in placement in a 9‑month pretrial diversion (PTD) program.
A.L. successfully completed the PTD program and the felony charge was later dismissed; she then petitioned for expunction under Article 55.01.
At the expunction hearing A.L. testified she met all statutory requirements and no case was pending; the State attempted to prove A.L. had waived the right to seek expunction in the plea agreement.
A.L.’s counsel objected that the State had not pleaded the affirmative defense of waiver; the trial court overruled the objection, admitted the State’s evidence, and denied the expunction.
The plea agreement was not admitted into evidence and is not included in the appellate record; the State did not file a responsive pleading asserting waiver before the hearing.
The appellate court found A.L. satisfied statutory expunction requirements and that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting unpleaded waiver evidence and relying on the unsigned plea agreement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether A.L. was entitled to expunction despite trial court denial	A.L.: met all Article 55.01 requirements; entitled to expunction	State: A.L. waived expunction rights in plea agreement	Court: Reversed; A.L. satisfied statutory requirements and is entitled to expunction
Whether the trial court properly admitted evidence of waiver without pleading it	A.L.: waiver is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded; unpleaded waiver evidence inadmissible	State: should be allowed to present waiver evidence at hearing	Court: Admission was an abuse of discretion; State failed to plead waiver, so evidence and the unfiled plea agreement could not support denial

Ex parte R.P.G.P., 623 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. 2021) (expunction is a civil remedy governed by civil procedure)
Ex parte E.H., 602 S.W.3d 486 (Tex. 2020) (trial court has no discretion in law application; legal questions reviewed de novo)
T.O. Stanley Boot Co. v. Bank of El Paso, 847 S.W.2d 218 (Tex. 1992) (affirmative defenses like waiver must be specially pleaded)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (distinguishing discretionary factual rulings from questions of law)
Interstate Northborough P’ship v. State, 66 S.W.3d 213 (Tex. 2001) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Carson v. State, 65 S.W.3d 774 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001) (expunction proceedings are civil and governed by civil rules)
Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. v. Sevcik, 267 S.W.3d 867 (Tex. 2008) (erroneous admission of crucial evidence probably caused improper judgment)
Nissan Motor Co. v. Armstrong, 145 S.W.3d 131 (Tex. 2004) (same: significance of erroneously admitted evidence to outcome)