From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Collin County v. Russell

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Jan 6, 2005
No. 05-04-00100-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 6, 2005)

Opinion

No. 05-04-00100-CV

Opinion Filed January 6, 2005.

On Appeal from the 199th District Court, Collin County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 199-02149-03.

Reverse and Render.

Before Justices MORRIS, O'NEILL, and LANG.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


The Collin County District Attorney appeals an order granting appellee David Russell's petition for expunction. In a single point of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in granting the petition for expunction because appellee failed to establish that the limitations period had run. The facts are known to the parties and we do not recite them here. Further, because all dispositive issues are settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion.

Appellee filed a petition to expunge his arrest for a Class C misdemeanor assault alleged to have occurred on March 20, 2003. The complaint was later dismissed. At the time he filed the petition, July 31, 2003, the limitations period had not expired. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 55.01(a)(2)(A) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). Nevertheless, the trial court granted the petition. The trial court's order is in direct conflict with this Court's opinion in State v. Bhat, in which we held expunction was improper under virtually identical facts. State v. Bhat, 127 S.W.3d 435, 436 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, no pet.). Consequently, we reverse the trial court's judgment and render judgment denying appellee's petition.


Summaries of

Collin County v. Russell

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Jan 6, 2005
No. 05-04-00100-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 6, 2005)
Case details for

Collin County v. Russell

Case Details

Full title:COLLIN COUNTY CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Appellant v. DAVID A…

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas

Date published: Jan 6, 2005

Citations

No. 05-04-00100-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 6, 2005)

Citing Cases

State v. Beam

The Dallas court of appeals, on the other hand, has held that article 55.01(a)(2)(A)(i)'s limitations…