Ex Parte Tommy Leon Jones ( 2011 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-10-00376-CV
EX PARTE TOMMY LEON JONES
From the 82nd District Court
Robertson County, Texas
Trial Court No. 10-07-18619-CV
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Tommy Leon Jones filed a petition for expunction with the trial court on the
grounds that he was “acquitted” by this Court and, therefore, entitled to expunction.
See Jones v. State, No. 10-07-00365-CR, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 6010 (Tex. App.—Waco
Aug. 6, 2008, no pet.) (memo. op). After a hearing, the trial court denied Jones’s
petition. We affirm.
An expunction hearing is a civil, not criminal, proceeding. Texas Dep't of Pub.
Safety v. Deck, 954 S.W.2d 108, 111 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.). The
procedures listed in article 55.02 are mandatory and must be complied with in an
expunction proceeding. Id. 112; Texas Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Riley, 773 S.W.2d 756, 758
(Tex. App.—San Antonio 1989, no writ). See Bargas v. State, 164 S.W.3d 763, 771 (Tex.
App.—Corpus Christi 2005, no pet.) (“Where a cause of action is derived solely from a
statute, the statutory provisions are mandatory, exclusive, and must be complied with
or the action is not maintainable.”). The petitioner therefore carries the burden of
proving that all statutory requirements have been satisfied. Tex. Dep't of Pub. Safety v.
J.H.J., 274 S.W.3d 803, 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet). A person's
entitlement to expunction arises only after all statutory conditions have been met even
if the person claims entitlement to expunction due to an acquittal. Id.; Bargas, 164
S.W.3d at 773. The trial court must strictly comply with the statutory requirements, and
has no equitable power to extend the protections of the expunction statute beyond its
stated provisions. Id.; Bargas, 164 S.W.3d at 771.
Jones’s petition did not comply with the basic requirements of article 55.02. The
petition was not verified, and Jones did not provide his driver’s license number, the
address at the time of his arrest, and the date of the offense charged was alleged to have
been committed. TEX. CODE CRIM PROC. ANN. art. 55.02, Sec. 2 (b) (West Supp. 2010).
Because Jones did not satisfy the statutory requirements for expunction, the trial court
did not err in denying Jones’s petition for expunction.
The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed February 23, 2011
[CV06]
Ex parte Jones Page 2