Texas Department of Public Safety v. J.S.H., 09-16-00106-CV

In 2007 J.S.H. was arrested on two counts of driving while intoxicated with a child under 15; the charges were later dismissed and he petitioned to expunge related records (filed July 15, 2015).
J.S.H. served a petition naming multiple entities (including DPS) he believed held records to be expunged and scheduled a submission hearing; counsel sent a letter to the 253rd District Court and copied the First Assistant District Attorney and J.S.H., but the record contains no direct notice to DPS of the October 9, 2015 hearing.
At the October 9, 2015 hearing J.S.H. appeared with counsel, his counsel stated the petition was "uncontested," and the trial court signed an Order for Expunction the same day; the district clerk mailed certified copies of the expunction order to listed entities, and DPS received its copy on October 21, 2015.
DPS filed a restricted appeal on April 7, 2016, arguing it never received notice of the October 9 hearing and therefore was denied the statutory notice required by art. 55.02, § 2(c).
The court applied the restricted-appeal criteria and found DPS met them (timely notice of appeal, party to suit, did not participate in the hearing, and error apparent on the face of the record).
The court concluded the record contains no evidence DPS was notified of the hearing or waived notice; because notice is mandatory under the expunction statute, the expunction order was reversed and set aside and the case remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the expunction order must be set aside because DPS did not receive statutory notice of the hearing	J.S.H.: Hearing was uncontested; all parties were given notice; no responses were filed	DPS: It did not receive notice of the October 9, 2015 hearing and did not waive notice; statutory notice to agencies is mandatory	Court: Sustained DPS’s issue — record shows no notice to DPS or waiver; expunction order reversed and set aside; remanded

Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. J.H.J., 274 S.W.3d 803 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (expunction review standard and precedents)
Heine v. Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 92 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002) (expunction is statutory privilege; petitioner's burden of strict compliance)
In re D.W.H., 458 S.W.3d 99 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2014) (expunction is statutory, not common-law/right)
Houston Police Dep’t v. Berkowitz, 95 S.W.3d 457 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002) (petitioner must strictly comply with expunction statute)
Collin Cty. Criminal Dist. Attorney’s Office v. Dobson, 167 S.W.3d 625 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005) (burden of compliance in expunction proceedings)
Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Deck, 954 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997) (expunction procedures are mandatory; lack of statutory notice invalidates order)
Rodriguez v. T.M.B., 812 S.W.2d 449 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1991) (setting aside expunction where agencies were not notified)
Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Riley, 773 S.W.2d 756 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1989) (expunction set aside for lack of notice and violation of waiting period)
Ex parte Elliot, 815 S.W.2d 251 (Tex. 1991) (when expunction is set aside, reversal applies to all agencies holding relevant records)