Opinion
No. 05-07-00523-CV
Opinion Filed March 26, 2008.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4 Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. X06-697-K.
Before Justices MORRIS, WRIGHT, and MOSELEY.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Gary J. Hampton, appearing pro se, appeals the trial court's summary judgment denying his petition for expunction of three felony forgery convictions. In three issues, appellant generally contends the trial court erred by granting the State's motion because the indictments in each case were void, and because the original trial courts lacked jurisdiction. The State responds that appellant is not eligible to have the records of convictions expunged. We agree with the State.
The right to expunction is neither a common law nor a constitutional right; rather, it exists as a statutory privilege which is granted and can be limited by the Legislature. Bargas v. State, 164 S.W.3d 763, 771 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2005, no pet.); McCarroll v. Tex. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 86 S.W.3d 376, 378 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2002, no pet.). Under article 55.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, a person who has been placed under a custodial or noncustodial arrest for commission of a felony or misdemeanor offense is entitled to have all records and files relating to the arrest expunged if the person meets certain statutory requirements. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 55.01(a) (Vernon 2006). A statutory expunction proceeding is civil rather than criminal in nature, and the burden of proving compliance with the statutory conditions rests with the petitioner. Houston Police Dep't v. Berkowitz, 95 S.W.3d 457, 460 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied). All of the statutory provisions are mandatory and exclusive, and a person is entitled to expunction only when all statutory conditions have been met. In re Wilson, 932 S.W.2d 263, 266 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1996, no writ).
Here, appellant has not met his burden of showing he met the statutory conditions for expunction of the records that relate to his convictions. Appellant was neither acquitted by the trial court nor convicted and subsequently pardoned. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 55.01(a)(1). Further, the indictments were neither quashed nor dismissed. See id. art. 55.01(a)(2). Appellant, who pleaded guilty to felony forgery in trial court cause number C74-5289-PQ and was found guilty of felony forgery in trial court cause numbers F83-10873-R and F83-10874-R, and was sentenced to imprisonment in each case, is not entitled to obtain any relief under the expungement statute as a matter of law. See Harris County Dist. Attorney's Office v. D.W.B., 860 S.W.2d 719, 721 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no writ). Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting the State's motion for summary judgment. We overrule appellant's points of error.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.