William E. Durham v. State, 09-16-00308-CV

William E. Durham was indicted in Liberty County for failing to register as a sex offender (CR28651) after an earlier related indictment (CR28475) resulted in conviction and a 12-year sentence.
The State moved to dismiss CR28651 after Durham was sentenced on CR28475; the trial court signed an order dismissing CR28651 on May 29, 2013.
On February 3, 2016 Durham filed a pro se petition to expunge records for CR28651, asserting only that the case was dismissed.
The trial court set a hearing more than five months after filing (July 28, 2016) and denied the petition, stating reasons would go unexplained.
Durham appealed, arguing entitlement to expunction under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 55.01(a)(2)(A)(ii) and that the hearing scheduling and adequacy violated art. 55.02.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Durham is entitled to expunction under art. 55.01(a)(2)(A)(ii) after dismissal	Durham: dismissal alone entitles him to expunction under art. 55.01(a)(2)(A)(ii)	State/Record: petitioner must prove statutory conditions (release, no conviction, not pending, no community supervision, and one of the subsection (ii) reasons for dismissal) — mere dismissal is insufficient	Court: Denied — Durham failed to prove any (ii) ground (pretrial intervention, mistake/false information/absence of probable cause, or void indictment); dismissal alone does not suffice
Whether the trial court violated art. 55.02 by scheduling the hearing >30 days after filing or by holding an "inadequate" hearing	Durham: court waited over five months and the hearing was inadequate	State/Record: art. 55.02 requires hearing no sooner than 30 days and reasonable notice; trial court may rule without live testimony if it has needed information	Court: Rejected — scheduling complied with the statute (hearing was not sooner than 30 days), and the court had sufficient information to decide without live testimony

Harris Cty. Dist. Attorney’s Office v. J.T.S., 807 S.W.2d 572 (Tex. 1991) (purpose of expunction is to remove records of wrongful arrests)
Houston Police Dep’t v. Berkowitz, 95 S.W.3d 457 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002) (petitioner bears burden to strictly comply with expunction statute)
T.C.R. v. Bell Cty. Dist. Attorney’s Office, 305 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. App.—Austin 2009) (statutory interpretation of expunction reviewed de novo)
S.J. v. State, 438 S.W.3d 838 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014) (courts must draw reasonable inferences in support of trial court judgment when no findings made)
Heine v. Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 92 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002) (abuse of discretion standard for expunction rulings)