Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ex parte Cain

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio

January 10, 2018

EX PARTE Forestt R. CAIN

         From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2016CI04083 Honorable Peter A. Sakai, Judge Presiding

          Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Marialyn Barnard, Justice

         This is an appeal from a trial court's order granting an expunction of appellee Forestt R. Cain's arrest records relating to the offense of misapplication of fiduciary property. On appeal, appellants the City of Windcrest and the Windcrest Police Department (collectively "Windcrest") contend the trial court erred in granting the expunction because Cain failed to meet all of the required statutory elements for an expunction of arrest records. We reverse the trial court's order of expunction and render judgment denying the expunction.

         Background

         In 2010, Cain was arrested for offenses relating to his actions as a city manager for the City of Windcrest. In November 2010 and February 2013, Cain was indicted for, among other offenses, felony theft by a public servant and felony misapplication of property by a fiduciary.[1] However, on October 1, 2015, the Bexar County District Attorney filed a motion to dismiss the criminal charges against Cain. The trial court granted the motion the same day it was filed.

         Thereafter, on March 8, 2016, Cain filed a petition for expunction. In his petition, he sought an order expunging "all records and files relating to his arrest" for the offenses of misapplication of property by a fiduciary. After a hearing, the trial court granted Cain's petition and rendered an order of expunction. Windcrest timely perfected this appeal.

         Analysis

         On appeal, Windcrest contends the trial court erred in granting the expunction because Cain failed to comply with all the necessary statutory requirements for an expunction. Specifically, Windcrest contends Cain failed to establish the statute of limitations had expired on the theft by a public servant offense, which was required because it stemmed from the same arrest. We agree.

         Standard of Review

         An appellate court reviews a trial court's ruling on a petition for expunction under an abuse of discretion standard. Henry v. State, 513 S.W.3d 750, 752 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2017, no pet.); Tex. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Dicken, 415 S.W.3d 476, 478 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2013, no pet.). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts without reference to any guiding rules or principles. Bennett v. Grant, 525 S.W.3d 642, 653 (Tex. 2017). However, to the extent an expunction ruling turns on a question of law, an appellate court reviews the ruling using a de novo standard because a trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts. Perry Homes v. Cull, 258 S.W.3d 580, 606 (Tex. 2008); Henry, 513 S.W.3d at 752; Dicken, 415 S.W.3d at 478; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex.1992).

         Applicable Law

         Although the provisions governing expunctions are set out in article 55.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, an expunction proceeding is civil rather than criminal in nature. Ex parte K.R.K., 446 S.W.3d 540, 543 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2014, no pet.); Ex parte Green, 373 S.W.3d 111, 113 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2012, no pet.); see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 55.01 (West Supp. 2017). Moreover, expunction is a statutory privilege, not a constitutional or common-law right. K.R.K., 446 S.W.3d at 543; Green, 373 S.W.3d at 113. Accordingly, a person seeking expunction is not entitled to relief unless he meets each requirement set out in article 55.01. K.R.K., 446 S.W.3d at 543; Green, 373 S.W.3d at 113. "Each statutory provision is mandatory and a petitioner is entitled to expunction only upon a showing that each and every statutory condition has been met." K.R.K., 446 S.W.3d at 543. A trial court has no equitable power to expand the availability of expunction beyond the limits of the statute; rather, it must strictly comply with the statutory requirements. Id. (citing T.C.R. v. Bell Cnty. Dist. Attorney's Office, 305 S.W.3d 661, 663 (Tex. App.-Austin 2009, no pet.)). Only if the person seeking expunction fully complies with the statutory requirements is the trial court required to grant relief. Id.

         As is pertinent to this appeal, article 55.01(a)(2)(B) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a person is entitled to expunction of an arrest record if he "has been released and the charge, if any, has not resulted in a final conviction and is no longer pending and there was not court-ordered community supervision . . . provided that . . . prosecution of the person for the offense for which the person was arrested is no longer possible because the limitations period has expired." Tex. Code Crim. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.