State v. N.R.J.
453 S.W.3d 76
Tex. App.2014Background
- On Dec. 6, 2007, N.R.J. was arrested and charged with DWI and possession of ≤2 ounces of marijuana.
- N.R.J. pleaded nolo contendere to DWI; during the plea he admitted guilt to the possession offense under Tex. Penal Code § 12.45 and asked the court to consider that admission in sentencing for DWI.
- The trial court found N.R.J. guilty of DWI, sentenced him to 15 months’ community supervision, and barred prosecution of the possession charge.
- N.R.J. petitioned for expunction of records relating only to the possession charge; the trial court granted the expunction.
- The State appealed, arguing (1) expunction of an individual charge from a multi-charge arrest is unavailable when another charge from the same arrest resulted in conviction; (2) an admission under § 12.45 bars expunction of the admitted offense; and (3) the possession charge remained pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (N.R.J.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether article 55.01 permits expunction of an individual charge arising from a multi-charge arrest when another charge from the same arrest resulted in conviction | Article 55.01 is arrest-based; all charges arising from one arrest must satisfy the statute — if one charge resulted in conviction, no charge from that arrest may be expunged | The statute and amendments allow focusing on the particular charge sought to be expunged; multiple charges can be treated separately | Court: All charges arising from the same arrest must meet article 55.01’s requirements; expunction denied for the possession charge. |
| Whether an admission of guilt to an unadjudicated offense under Penal Code § 12.45 (plea in bar) precludes expunction of that offense | A § 12.45 admission and the trial court’s consideration of that admission in sentencing means the unadjudicated offense ‘‘resulted in a final conviction’’ for expunction purposes; thus expunction is barred | The admission only bars prosecution of that charge but does not constitute a conviction or make the charge non-expungeable under the statute | Court: A § 12.45 admission, when considered in sentencing for another offense, precludes expunction of the admitted offense. |
| Whether the possession charge remained pending after the § 12.45 plea in bar | (State raised) the charge remained pending so expunction unavailable | N.R.J. argued the offense was barred and therefore not pending | Court: Overruled State’s pending argument as applied here; the dispositive grounds were the arrest-based rule and § 12.45 admission. |
| Remedy | The State sought reversal of expunction order | N.R.J. sought affirmance of expunction limited to the possession records | Court: Reversed trial-court expunction and rendered judgment denying the petition. |
Key Cases Cited
- S.J. v. State, 438 S.W.3d 838 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014) (holding petitioner not entitled to expunction unless all charges arising from the arrest meet article 55.01)
- Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Dicken, 415 S.W.3d 476 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2013) (applies arrest-based expunction analysis; denies expunction where related charge resulted in conviction)
- Travis Cnty. Dist. Attorney v. M.M., 354 S.W.3d 920 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011) (en banc) (interpreting article 55.01’s requirements in multi-charge/arrest contexts)
- In re O.R.T., 414 S.W.3d 330 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2013) (petitioner must satisfy all statutory conditions; plea-bargain dismissals preclude expunction)
- Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Nail, 305 S.W.3d 673 (Tex. App.—Austin 2010) (petitioner bears burden to prove entitlement to expunction; statutory framework for expunction)