Texas Department of Public Safety v. J. A. M.
01-16-00814-CV
| Tex. App. | May 2, 2017Background
- J.A.M. was arrested for criminal mischief (two state-jail-felony indictments) after a February 20, 2014 incident in Brazoria County.
- Pursuant to a plea agreement, the State dismissed the two felony indictments and charged J.A.M. with a reduced single Class A misdemeanor.
- J.A.M. pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor; the trial court deferred adjudication and placed her on 15 months’ community supervision with fines, restitution, and community service.
- J.A.M. filed a petition to expunge the records of the dismissed state-jail-felony charges; the petition did not mention the misdemeanor or the deferred adjudication order.
- The trial court granted expunction; the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) moved for new trial arguing J.A.M. was ineligible because she received court-ordered community supervision stemming from the same arrest.
- The trial court’s order granting expunction was reversed and remanded for a new trial because the record showed J.A.M. received court-ordered community supervision arising from the arrest, rendering her ineligible under article 55.01(a)(2).
Issues
| Issue | J.A.M.'s Argument | DPS's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissed felony charges arising from a plea that produced deferred adjudication on a different charge are eligible for expunction under art. 55.01(a)(2) | Expunction available for the dismissed felony counts; petition satisfied requirements for those charges | Ineligible because petitioner received court-ordered community supervision arising from the same arrest (regardless of which charge resulted in supervision) | DPS prevailed: expunction is unavailable if any charge from the arrest was subject to court-ordered community supervision |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying DPS’s motion for new trial after it produced the deferred-adjudication order | Trial court properly granted expunction without addressing the misdemeanor supervision order | Trial court abused its discretion because the motion for new trial showed J.A.M. failed to meet statutory requirements | Court held trial court erred and remanded for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Expunction, 465 S.W.3d 283 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015) (expunction is a statutory privilege and petitioner bears burden to satisfy art. 55.01)
- Ve v. Travis Cty. Dist. Att’y, 500 S.W.3d 652 (Tex. App.—Austin 2016) (if any charge from an arrest is ineligible for expunction, none of the charges arising from that arrest may be expunged)
- Mercedes–Benz Credit Corp. v. Rhyne, 925 S.W.2d 664 (Tex. 1996) (standard for abuse of discretion)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (legal conclusions reviewed de novo)