Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-14-00701-CV
EX PARTE Erin JUI
From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2014-CI-08797
Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Jason Pulliam, Justice
Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Jason Pulliam, Justice
Delivered and Filed: March 4, 2015
AFFIRMED
The Bexar County Sheriff’s Office (the “Sheriff’s Office”) appeals the trial court’s order
expunging all records concerning Erin Jui’s arrest for theft. In a single issue, the Sheriff’s Office
contends the trial court’s expunction order is not supported by legally sufficient evidence. We
affirm the trial court’s order.
The Sheriff’s Office contends Jui was not entitled to expunction under Article 55.01 of the
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure because Jui received deferred adjudication probation for the
offense. The Sheriff’s Office also asserts Jui failed to establish by legally sufficient evidence that
Jui had not received court-ordered community supervision, thereby failing to comply with the
statutory requirements for expunction. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 55.01(a)(2) (West 2014).
04-14-00701-CV
We agree with the Sheriff’s Office that, pursuant to Article 55.01(a)(2), Jui would not be
entitled to an expunction of her arrest records if she received court-ordered community
supervision. See Ex parte Green, 373 S.W.3d 111, 113 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, no pet.)
(holding that to be entitled to expunction, the petitioner must meet all statutory requirements under
Article 55.01). Attachments to the answer filed by the Texas Department of Public Safety indicate
that Jui received deferred adjudication and would, therefore, not be entitled to an expunction.
However, attachments to pleadings are not evidence unless they are offered and admitted as
evidence by the trial court. Texas Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Sowell, No. 11-10-00018-CV, 2011 WL
3359716, at *1 (Tex. App.—Eastland Aug. 4, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.).
Here, no reporter’s record was made of the expunction hearing. The trial court’s order
states that “[a]fter presentation of evidence, it is the decision of the [trial] [c]ourt that Petitioner is
entitled to have [her] records expunged.” Because there is no reporter’s record, we are unable to
determine what evidence the trial court considered in granting the expunction. The Sheriff’s
Office’s attempt at filling the void by referring to DPS’s answer and its attachments is ineffective
to show that the evidence was insufficient to establish Jui’s entitlement to an expunction. Ex parte
Cheeks, No. 07-11-0430-CV, 2012 WL 952112, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Mar. 21, 2012,
no pet.) (mem. op.). Without a record of the evidence presented at the hearing, we cannot hold
that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the expunction; therefore, the trial court’s order
is affirmed.
Jason Pulliam, Justice
-2-