ACCEPTED
12-14-00199-CV
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS
TYLER, TEXAS
1/20/2015 4:11:13 PM
CATHY LUSK
NO. 12-14-00199-CV CLERK
**************
RECEIVED IN
12th COURT OF APPEALS
TYLER, TEXAS
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
1/20/2015 4:11:13 PM
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF TEXAS CATHY S. LUSK
Clerk
AT TYLER, TEXAS
*********
EX PARTE GREGORY P. HATZIS,
1/20/2015
*********
Appealed from the 7th District Court
Smith County, Texas
Trial Court No. 13-3026-A
__________________________________________________________________
BRIEF OF APPELLEE GREGORY P. HATZIS
__________________________________________________________________
EBB B. MOBLEY RYAN HILL
Attorney at Law Attorney at Law
State Bar # 14238000 State Bar # 00785961
422 North Center Street 211 North Center Street
P.O. Box 2309 P.O. Box 3369
Longview, TX 75606 Longview, Texas 75606
Telephone: 903-757-3331 Telephone: 903-753-3369
Facsimile: 903-753-8289 Facsimile: 903-758-3239
ebbmob@aol.com Ryanray1@aol.com
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED ONLY IF GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT
NO. 12-14-00199-CV
EX PARTE GREGORY P. HATZIS
__________________________________________________________________
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
__________________________________________________________________
Trial Court: Kerry L. Russell
7th Judicial District Court
100 North Broadway, Room 203
Tyler, Texas 75702
Appellee/Petitioner: Gregory P. Hatzis
Ryan R. Hill, Trial Counsel
State Bar No. 00785961
P.O. Box 3369
Longview, Texas 75606
Ebb B. Mobley, Additional Counsel
State Bar No. 14238000
422 North Center Street-Lower Level
P.O. Box 2309
Longview, Texas 75606
Appellant/Respondent: Texas Department of Public Safety
D. Kaylyn Betts, Appellate Counsel
State Bar No. 24064894
Jeanine C. Hudson, Trial Counsel
State Bar No. 24048960
Crime Records Service (MSC 0234)
P.O. Box 4143
Austin, Texas 78765-4143
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
STATEMENT OF FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
REPLY TO ISSUE NUMBER ONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Is Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 55.01 an “arrest-based” or an
“offense-based” statute?
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8
REPLY TO ISSUE NUMBER TWO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
The entire available record provides more than a scintilla of evidence
to establish that Mr. Hatzis did not and will not face jeopardy from
his arrest for D.W.I.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-10
PRAYER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
.
2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 807 (Tex. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9-10
Department of Transportation v. City of Sunset Valley, 146 S.W.3d 637,
642 (Tex. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549, 558 (Tex. 1995) . . . .9
Ex parte S.C., 305 S.W.3d 258, 260 (Tex.App. - Houston [14th Dist.]
2009, no pet.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
F.F.P. Operating Partners, L.P. v. Duenez, 237 S.W.3d 680, 683 (Tex. 2007) . . . . .7
G.B.E. v. Texas Department of Public Safety, No. 14-0324, Texas Supreme
Court petition for review denied, November 21, 2014 of opinion in
No. 13-13-00017-CV, D.P.S. v. G.B.E., Austin Court of Appeals,
opinion March 20, 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Harris County District Attorney v. Lacafta, 965 S.W.2d 568, 569
(Tex.App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no pet.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Heine v. Texas Department of Public Safety, 92 S.W.3d 642, 646
(Tex.App. - Austin 2002, pet. denied) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6,8,9
In re O.R.T., 414 S.W.3d 330, 332 (Tex.App. - El Paso 2013, no pet.) . . . . . . . . . . .7
In re State Bar of Texas, S.W.3d (Tex. 2014) (No. 13-0161; op.
August 22, 2014) 2014 Tex. LEXIS 688 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
State v. Shumate, 199 S.W.3d 279, 284 (Tex. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Service v. Mega Child Care, Inc.,
145 S.W.3d 170, 177 (Tex. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Texas Department of Public Safety v. Dicken, 415 S.W.3d 476, 478
(Tex.App. - San Antonio 2013, no pet.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Texas Department of Public Safety v. J.H.J., 274 S.W.3d 803, 806
(Tex.App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-8
Texas Department of Public Safety v. Nail, 305 S.W.3d 673, 674
(Tex.App. - Austin 2010, no pet.) (op. on reh’g) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
3
Statutes
Code of Criminal Procedure Article 55.01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6,7
Government Code Ann §312.002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Government Code Ann §312.003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Government Code Ann §312.005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Texas Department of Public Safety brings a restricted appeal of an
expunction order in favor of GREGORY P. HATZIS.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Department has adequately summarized the procedural history of this case.
The evidence presented at a bench trial on January 17, 2014, is brief and
uncontroverted.
The judge took judicial notice of the court’s file. RR 4, 8. Gregory Hatzis
testified that he was originally arrested only for misdemeanor driving while
intoxicated. RR 6. That case was ultimately decided without any probation or
deferred adjudication. RR 7.
The State did not question Mr. Hatzis or offer any evidence of any kind. After
argument of counsel, the judge took the matter of expunction under advisement. RR
18. An order of expunction was signed and filed on February 24, 2014. CR-115.
The Department contends that Mr. Hatzis was not entitled to have his record
expunged because the face of the record establishes that his arrest for driving while
intoxicated resulted in a conviction for reckless driving.
The Department also contends that there is insufficient evidence to support the
order of expunction.
5
REPLY TO ISSUE NUMBER ONE
Is Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 55.01 an “arrest-based” or “offense-based”
statute?
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
The trial court correctly applied an “offense-based” analysis of Article 55.01
under an amendment by the Legislature in 2011.
ARGUMENT
STATUTE AT ISSUE
The statute to be construed in this case is Code of Criminal Procedure Article
55.01, a copy of which is attached as an appendix to the State’s brief.
The State contends the trial court misconstrued the expunction statutes to
permit an “offense-based” analysis rather than an “arrest-based” analysis, thereby
permitting the trial court to expunge a D.W.I. charge arising from his arrest. On the
other hand, Mr. Hatzis asserts the trial court correctly applied an “offense-based”
analysis under the expunction statutes due to an amendment by the Legislature in
2011.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
An abuse of discretion standard is used in reviewing trial court rulings on
petitions for expunction. See Heine v. Texas Department of Public Safety, 92 S.W.3d
642, 646 (Tex.App. - Austin 2002, pet. denied). To the extent a ruling on expunction
turns on a question of law, however, the ruling is de novo, because a trial court has
no discretion in determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts. Texas
Department of Public Safety v. Dicken, 415 S.W.3d 476, 478 (Tex.App. - San
Antonio 2013, no pet.). “A trial court abuses its discretion if it orders an expunction
6
of records despite a petitioner’s failure to satisfy all of the statutory requirements.”
In re O.R.T., 414 S.W.3d 330, 332 (Tex.App. - El Paso 2013, no pet.).
When construing statutes under a de novo standard of review, the primary
objective is to ascertain and give effect to the Legislature’s intent. Texas Government
Code Ann §312.005 (West 2005). See F.F.P. Operating Partners, L.P. v. Duenez,
237 S.W.3d 680, 683 (Tex. 2007). To discern that intent, the actual words of the
statute are examined. Texas Government Code Ann. §312.002, 312.003 (West
2013). See State v. Shumate, 199 S.W.3d 279, 284 (Tex. 2006). If a statute is
unambiguous, this court must adopt the interpretation supported by its plain
language, unless such an interpretation would lead to absurd results that the
Legislature could not possibly have intended. Texas Department of Protective &
Regulatory Service v. Mega Child Care, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 170, 177 (Tex. 2004). This
court should consider statutes as a whole rather than as isolated provisions.
Department of Transportation v. City of Sunset Valley, 146 S.W.3d 637, 642 (Tex.
2004).
EXPUNCTION
The remedy of expunction allows a person who has been arrested for the
commission of an offense to have the records and files relating to the arrest expunged
if he meets the statutory requirements of Article 55.01. See Texas Department of
Public Safety v. Nail, 305 S.W.3d 673, 674 (Tex.App. - Austin 2010, no pet.) (op. on
reh’g). A petitioner’s right to expunction is neither a constitutional nor common-law
right; rather, it is a statutory privilege. Ex parte S.C., 305 S.W.3d 258, 260 (Tex.App.
- Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.). All of the statutory provisions are mandatory
and exclusive, and the petitioner is entitled to expunction only when all statutory
conditions have been met. Texas Department of Public Safety v. J.H.J., 274 S.W.3d
7
803, 806 (Tex.App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.). The trial court has no
equitable power to permit expunction where it is not allowed. Id. Further, although
the expunction statute appears in the code of criminal procedure, an expunction
proceeding is civil in nature. Harris County District Attorney v. Lacafta, 965 S.W.2d
568, 569 (Tex.App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no pet.), and the petitioner carries the
burden of proving compliance with the statutory requirements. Heine, 92 S.W.3d at
646.
ANALYSIS
Since the State filed its brief on August, 2014, numerous courts of appeal have
considered this question and appear to have adopted an “arrest-based” analysis. See
Brief Exhibit A. The Texas Supreme Court on November 21, 2014, in No. 14-0324,
G.B.E. v. Texas Department of Pubic Safety, declined to clarify this question where
the issue was squarely considered by the Austin Court of Appeals in No. 03-13-
00017-CV, Texas Department of Public Safety v. G.B.E., in its March 20, 2014,
opinion.
None of the above cases shed light on whether the statutory term “arrest” refers
to each individual charge for which a person is arrested, or the group of charges
arising out of a single incident of arrest.
The purpose of the expunction statute “serves to protect wrongfully accused
people by eradicating their arrest records. In re State Bar of Texas, S.W.3d
(Tex 2014) (No.13-0161; op. August 22, 2014) 2014 Tex. LEXIS 688. Applying this
rationale to Hatzis’ case, he was wrongfully accused of D.W.I but thereafter rightfully
accused of reckless driving. As a result, Mr. Hatzis should be able to expunge the
D.W.I. arrest record, while government agencies including DPS may retain copies of
his conviction for reckless driving.
8
REPLY TO ISSUE NUMBER TWO
The entire available record provides more than a scintilla of evidence to
establish that Mr. Hatzis did not and will not face “jeopardy” from his arrest for
D.W.I.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
For purposes of a restricted appeal, the face of the record consists of all papers
on file in the appeal. The Reporter’s Record at bar includes testimony by Appellee
Gregory Hatzis. The entire available record provides more than a scintilla of
evidence to establish that Mr. Hatzis did not and will not face “jeopardy” from his
arrest for D.W.I.
ARGUMENT
A trial court’s order granting or denying expunction is reviewed for “abuse of
discretion.” See Heine v. Texas Department of Public Safety, 92 S.W.3d 642, 646
(Tex.App. - Austin 2002, pet. denied). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts
“without reference to any guiding rules or principles.” E.I. du Pont de Nemours &
Co. v Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549, 558 (Tex. 1995). However, if an expunction ruling
turns on a question of law, a ‘trial court has no ‘discretion’ in determining what the
law is or applying the law to the facts.” See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840
(Tex. 1992). Thus, a trial court abuses its discretion if it misinterprets or misapplies
the law. Id.
When reviewing a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, the
evidence is reviewed in the light most favorable to the judgment, crediting favorable
evidence if reasonable jurors could and disregarding contrary evidence unless
reasonable jurors could not. City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 807 (Tex.
9
2005). A legal sufficiency complaint is sustained if the record reveals (1) the
complete absence of a vital fact; (2) the court is barred by rules of law or evidence
from giving weight to the only evidence offered to prove a vital fact; (3) the evidence
offered to prove a vital fact is no more than a mere scintilla; or (4) the evidence
conclusively establishes the opposite of the vital fact. See id. At 810.
10
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
For the reasons stated in this brief, Appellee prays that the trial court’s
judgment be affirmed.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ RYAN HILL
EBB B. MOBLEY RYAN HILL
Attorney at Law Attorney at Law
State Bar # 14238000 State Bar # 00785961
422 North Center Street 211 North Center Street
P.O. Box 2309 P.O. Box 3369
Longview, TX 75606 Longview, Texas 75606
Telephone: 903-757-3331 Telephone: 903-753-3369
Facsimile: 903-753-8289 Facsimile: 903-758-3239
ebbmob@aol.com Ryanray1@aol.com
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that this brief contains words according to the computer
program used to prepare the document.
/s/ RYAN HILL
RYAN HILL
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true and correct copy of this brief was served on opposing
counsel by email on the 20th day of January, 2015.
/s/ RYAN HILL
RYAN HILL
11
APPENDIX
Ex parte T.C., No. 12-13-00138-CV, Tyler Court of Appeals, opinion date
August 20, 2014, no pet.
D.P.S. v. Ibarra, No. 13-13-00656-CV, Corpus Christi Court of Appeals,
opinion September 2, 2014, rehearing en banc pending.
D.P.S. v. K.J.H., No. 09-14-00042-CV, Beaumont Court of Appeals, opinion
September 4, 2014, 2014 Tex.App. LEXIS 9945, no pet.
Ex parte Broseh, No. 11-13-00158-CV, Eastland Court of Appeals, opinion
September 4, 2014, no pet.
Ex parte Hiojosa, No. 13-14-00084-CV, Corpus Christi Court of Appeals,
opinion September 4, 2014, no pet.
Ex parte Post, No. 07-14-00138-CV, Amarillo Court of Appeals, opinion
September 24, 2014, no pet.
G.B.E. v. D.P.S., No. 14-0324, Texas Supreme Court petition for review
denied, November 21, 2014 of opinion in No. 13-13-00017-CV, D.P.S. v.
G.B.E., Austin Court of Appeals, opinion March 20, 2014.
D.P.S. v. J.W.D., No. 03-14-00101-CV, Austin Court of Appeals, opinion
December 31, 2014.
Ex parte S.D., No. 07-13-00168-CV, Amarillo Court of Appeals, opinion
January 15, 2015.
12