Reversed and Rendered and Opinion Filed December 20, 2018.
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-17-01359-CV
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Appellant
V.
NANCY ELAINE BLANTON, Appellee
On Appeal from the 15th Judicial District Court
Grayson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CU-17-1238
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Lang, Fillmore, and Schenck
Opinion by Justice Lang
In this restricted appeal appellant Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) seeks reversal
of the trial court’s order granting an expunction of records to appellee Nancy Elaine Blanton. In a
single issue, DPS contends the district court “misinterpreted” the Texas expunction of records
statute by allowing Blanton’s records to be expunged despite a final conviction. We agree with the
DPS that the district court erred when it granted Blanton’s petition for expunction. The district
court’s order of expunction is reversed and we render an order denying Blanton’s petition for
expunction.
I. Factual and Procedural Context
On April 5, 1980, Nancy Elaine Blanton was arrested for, and charged with, larceny and
theft by check. Blanton pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of issuance of bad check. TEX. PENAL
CODE ANN. § 32.41. She was convicted of that offense and fined $1.00 and court costs, with
payment deferred 60 days. The judgment dated April 8, 1980 respecting that offense states that
Blanton “appeared in person and by attorney waived a trial by jury, executed a waiver permitting
stipulation of testimony and waived his [sic] time to prepare for trial and his [sic] right to be
confronted with his [sic] accusers and to cross examination of witnesses,” and pleaded guilty. On
August 15, 2017, Blanton filed a petition to expunge the records of her April 5, 1980 arrest and
the April 8, 1980 conviction. In her petition, Blanton stated she was not convicted of an offense
relating to her arrest. In response, DPS filed an answer asserting the arrest resulted in a final
conviction. On September 29, 2017, after a hearing, the district court signed an order granting
expunction. DPS timely filed this restricted appeal.
II. Restricted Appeal of Expunction Order
Initially, we must address whether DPS may complain of the expunction order in a
restricted appeal. All law enforcement agencies that may have records a petitioner wants expunged
are entitled to be represented by counsel at an expunction hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.
ANN. art. 55.02, § 2(c–1); Texas Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Foster, 398 S.W.3d 887, 890 (Tex. App.—
Dallas 2013, no pet.). To successfully attack an order by restricted appeal, the appealing party must
show it was (1) a party who did not participate either in person or through counsel in the hearing
that resulted in the judgment complained of, (2) it filed a notice of appeal within six months after
the order was signed, and (3) error is apparent on the face of the record. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(C),
30; Foster, 398 S.W.3d at 890. An agency protesting an expunction order may appeal the judge's
decision in the same manner as in other civil cases. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 55.02, §
3(a); Foster, 398 S.W.3d at 890.
As a state agency that has records subject to expunction, DPS is a party to the suit within
the meaning of the requirements of a restricted appeal. Foster, 398 S.W.3d at 890. The petition for
–2–
expunction was filed on August 15, 2017. The record contains a return receipt showing DPS was
served with a copy of the petition for expunction on August 22, 2017. On September 26, 2017,
DPS filed an answer. However, DPS did not participate in person or through counsel in the
expunction hearing. Accordingly, DPS meets the first requirement for raising a restricted
appeal. Foster, 398 S.W.3d at 890.
The order of expunction was signed by the district court on September 29, 2017. DPS filed
its notice of restricted appeal on November 8, 2017, within the six-month deadline contemplated
in rule 26.1(c). Because DPS timely filed its notice of restricted appeal, it meets the second
requirement for raising a restricted appeal. Foster, 398 S.W.3d at 890. Accordingly, we next turn
to whether error is apparent on the face of the record.
III. Standard of Review
In a restricted appeal, an appellate court is limited to considering only the face of the record,
but its scope of review is otherwise the same as that in an ordinary appeal. Foster, 398 S.W.3d at
887, 890. Accordingly, an appellate court reviews the entire case. Id. In a restricted appeal, the
face of the record consists of all papers on file in the appeal, including the reporter's record. Id. An
appellate court's review of the entire case encompasses the review of the insufficiency claims. Id.
IV. Applicable Law
Expunction is a statutory privilege and the petitioner must prove that all statutory
requirements have been satisfied. Texas Dep’t. of Pub. Safety v. J.H.J., 274 S.W.3d 803, 806 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.). Pursuant to article 55.01(a) of the code of criminal
procedure, a person who has been placed under custodial or noncustodial arrest for commission of
either a felony or misdemeanor is entitled to have all records and files relating to the arrest
expunged if:
–3–
(a) A person who has been placed under a custodial or noncustodial arrest for
commission of either a felony or misdemeanor is entitled to have all records and
files relating to the arrest expunged if:
(1) the person is tried for the offense for which the person was arrested and is:
(A) acquitted by the trial court, except as provided by Subsection (c); or
(B) convicted and subsequently:
(i) pardoned for a reason other than that described by Subparagraph (ii); or
(ii) pardoned or otherwise granted relief on the basis of actual innocence with
respect to that offense, if the applicable pardon or court order clearly indicates on
its face that the pardon or order was granted or rendered on the basis of the person's
actual innocence; or
(2) the person has been released and the charge, if any, has not resulted in a final
conviction and is no longer pending and there was no court-ordered community
supervision under Chapter 42A for the offense, unless the offense is a Class C
misdemeanor…
TEX. CRIM. PROC. CODE ANN. § 55.01(a).
V. Application of Law to the Facts
DPS argues that “Blanton is not entitled to an expunction of any records from her arrest
because she was convicted of a charge as a result of that arrest.” To be entitled to expunction under
the facts of this case, Blanton had the burden to establish the charge did not result in a final
conviction. Blanton contends she was not convicted of the offense. She presents four arguments
in support of her contention. We address each argument in turn. First, Blanton asserts she did not
waive her right to a trial, and that no trial was held. However, the judgment states unequivocally
she waived her right to a trial. Blanton cites nothing in the record to support her position on this
point.
Second, Blanton asserts that she advised the “clerk” she was pleading guilty, and the clerk
told her “the county attorney said it would be deferred because it was my first offense.” Blanton
contends she “received a deferred penalty and was placed on probation for 60 days without a trial
court [sic].” Thus, she argued, the fact that she successfully completed probation “prevented a
–4–
judgment of conviction.” The judgment does reflect that the fine and costs sentenced to Blanton
were deferred, reading “FINE & COSTS DEFERRED 60 DAYS.” However, nothing in the record
identifies the conviction as being deferred.
Third, Blanton argues she received insufficient notice to hire an attorney. She contends the
lack of notice meant she could not be, and was not, represented by counsel. First, she states she
was “arrested and then released when I paid bail on April 5, 1980, a Saturday.” She then argues
“there was no way I could get notice of trial and get a lawyer by Tuesday, April 8, 1980 and be
prepared for a court trial.” She additionally states, “The Judgment…has typed above the word
Judgment ‘motion by County Attorney.’ If I had a lawyer it seems my lawyer would make a
motion.”
The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:
Defendant appeared in person and by attorney waived a trial by jury, executed a
waiver permitting stipulation of testimony and waived his [sic] time to prepare for
trial and his [sic] right to be confronted with his [sic] accusers and to cross
examination of witnesses, and pleaded guilty. It appears to the Court that the
Defendant was duly admonished as required by law affirming unequivocally that
no coersion, duress or promises prompted his [sic] plea, and he [sic] had been fully
advised as to all his [sic] constitutional rights by his [sic] attorney and the range of
punishment was explained to defendant; Defendant was warned by the Court that
the Court is not bound on any recommendation of either attorney or is not bound
by any plea bargain entered into by parties; but that if such plea bargain, if any, is
not approved by the Court, then the Defendant may withdraw his plea of guilty,
Defendant confessed all material, allegations and was found guilty under his plea
of guilty…
Contrary to what Blanton argues, nowhere in the record is there anything that shows she was not
represented by counsel.
Fourth, Blanton states she “believed when I paid the clerk that I was not convicted and
there would not be a judicial determination of guilt.” However, once again, the record reflects
Blanton pleaded “guilty” and was found “guilty.”
–5–
VI. Conclusion
The trial court erred in granting the order of expunction. As a matter of law, Blanton’s
conviction for issuance of bad check precludes the expunction of the records and file relating to
her arrest. We reverse the order of expunction, and render judgment denying expunction.
/Douglas S. Lang/
DOUGLAS S. LANG
JUSTICE
171359F.P05
–6–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC On Appeal from the 15th Judicial District
SAFETY, Appellant Court, Grayson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CV-17-1238.
No. 05-17-01359-CV V. Opinion delivered by Justice Lang. Justices
Fillmore and Schenck participating.
NANCY ELAINE BLANTON, Appellee
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s September 29, 2017
“Order Directing Expunction of Criminal Records” is REVERSED and judgment is
RENDERED that Nancy Elaine Blanton is not entitled to an expunction of records as a matter of
law.
It is ORDERED that appellant TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY recover
costs of this appeal from appellee NANCY ELAINE BLANTON.
Judgment entered this 20th day of December, 2018.
–7–