Texas Department of Public Safety v. Raquel Ibarra
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 9900
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Ibarra was arrested for money laundering on January 18, 2011 and pleaded nolo contendere.
- The trial court entered deferred adjudication on February 21, 2012, with two years of community supervision and a $1,000 fine; the State recommended expunction if law allowed.
- On May 3, 2013, Ibarra petitioned for expunction of arrest and prosecution records, arguing eligibility under Article 55.01(b)(2).
- TDPS opposed, arguing 55.01(a)(2) bars expunction after a term of community supervision; the district attorney supported expunction under (b)(2).
- Docket showed a June 17, 2013 hearing with no appearance by TDPS; the court granted expunction under 55.01(b)(2).
- TDPS filed a restricted appeal contending error, which the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 55.01(a)(2) bars expunction after community supervision | Ibarra (TDPS) argued (a)(2) prohibits expunction once community supervision is ordered. | Ibarra argued (b)(2) allows expunction even with prior supervision due to prosecutor’s pretrial recommendation. | Article 55.01(a)(2) does not apply to (b)(2) expunction. |
| Whether (b)(2) permits expunction before trial when there is a prosecutor recommendation | TDPS argued (b)(2) applies only to untried cases and requires timing before trial. | Ibarra argued (b)(2) permits expunction when prosecutor recommends before trial, regardless of trial outcome. | Trial court validly expunged under (b)(2); plain text supports pretrial recommendation. |
| Whether a remand was required for lack of reporter's record | TDPS contends absence of reporter’s record requires remand. | Ibarra and record show no evidence was presented; remand unnecessary under case law. | No remand required; lack of reporter’s record does not mandate reversal here. |
| Whether recommendation to expunction must be to a particular 'appropriate district court' | TDPS argued that (b)(2) requires recommendation to the appropriate district court, implying untried cases only. | Ibarra contends nothing in statute limits (b)(2) to untried offenses; proper district court was involved. | Statutory language allows pretrial recommendation to the appropriate district court; not limited to untried cases. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Nail, 305 S.W.3d 673 (Tex. App.—Austin 2010) (expunction entitlement is statutory; burden on petitioner)
- Ex parte Cephus, 410 S.W.3d 416 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard for expunction decisions)
- Heine v. Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 92 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002) (expunction review framework; statutory boundaries)
- City of Rockwall v. Hughes, 246 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. 2008) (plain-language interpretation governs expunction statute interpretation)
- Bazan v. Canales, 200 S.W.3d 844 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2006) (statutory cause of action; mandatory and exclusive provisions)
- Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. J.H.J., 274 S.W.3d 803 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (trial court has no power to extend expunction beyond statute)
- Robinson v. Robinson, 487 S.W.2d 713 (Tex. 1972) (due diligence and inability to obtain a proper record may require new trial)