John L. Scritchfield v. State
12-16-00252-CV
Tex. App.Jan 28, 2017Background
- In 1996 Scritchfield was arrested for "Assault F/V" (assault-family violence) and later pled guilty in 1997 to the reduced offense of Class C assault (offensive touching); he was fined and ordered to pay restitution.
- In 2016 Scritchfield filed a petition for nondisclosure (sealing) of his criminal record under the version of Tex. Gov’t Code § 411.081 in effect when the offense occurred.
- At a July 2016 hearing the trial court heard testimony, including Scritchfield’s admission that he and the victim were living together as boyfriend/girlfriend, and denied the petition, finding the underlying offense involved family violence.
- The State appealed (or moved to dismiss the appeal), arguing the appellate court lacks jurisdiction because the amount-in-controversy for an appeal was not met and no statutory appellate right exists for nondisclosure orders.
- Alternatively, the State argued Scritchfield is substantively ineligible for nondisclosure because (1) he was convicted (not placed on deferred adjudication) and (2) the underlying offense involved family violence, which may be shown by extrinsic evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to hear appeal from denial of nondisclosure | Appellant challenges denial and proceeds on appeal | State: No express statutory right to appeal nondisclosure orders; amount in controversy not shown, so appellate jurisdiction lacking | Court urged to dismiss appeal for want of jurisdiction (State’s position) |
| Eligibility when petitioner was convicted rather than given deferred adjudication | Appellant contends conviction to Class C does not preclude nondisclosure and that family-violence finding requires an affirmative trial-court finding | State: At time of offense, §411.081 required deferred adjudication/discharge to qualify; conviction excludes eligibility | Court upheld denial as petitioner did not receive deferred adjudication (State’s position) |
| Whether the underlying offense involved "family violence" | Appellant argues a conviction for Class C assault should not automatically be treated as involving family violence absent explicit finding | State: Family violence can be shown by the record or extrinsic evidence (e.g., victim lived with petitioner); statute bars nondisclosure for offenses involving family violence | Court affirmed denial because record and plea circumstances showed the offense involved family violence (State’s position) |
| Whether an affirmative "family violence" finding on the face of the reduced judgment is required | Appellant: There must be an affirmative family-violence notation on the plea/judgment | State: No; the nondisclosure statute disqualifies offenses that "involved" family violence and prior convictions may be shown via extrinsic evidence | Court accepted State’s argument that extrinsic evidence suffices to show involvement of family violence |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. State, 402 S.W.3d 758 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (discussing appellate jurisdiction where petitioner testified to specific economic harms)
- Huth v. State, 241 S.W.3d 206 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2007) (addressing lack of appellate jurisdiction over nondisclosure orders)
- Tune v. Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 23 S.W.3d 358 (Tex. 2000) (amount-in-controversy jurisprudence re: administrative fees contrasted with court costs)
- Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Barlow, 48 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. 2001) (similar jurisdictional valuation principles)
- Tex. Lottery Comm’n v. First State Bank of Dequeen, 325 S.W.3d 628 (Tex. 2010) (plain statutory text governs when language is unambiguous)
- Mitchell v. State, 102 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003) (state may prove a prior conviction involved family violence by extrinsic evidence)
- State v. N.R.J., 453 S.W.3d 76 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014) (discussing scope of relief and relation of arrest/charging documents to post-conviction relief)