Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:At the time of the arrest on April 24, 1990, Earnest Carl Wilson was on deferred adjudication. He was arrested for violating the conditions of his community supervision and the trial court revoked his community supervision and adjudicated him guilty of the prior crime. The motion to proceed with adjudication of guilt alleged that he violated the terms of his community supervision by public intoxication, possession of cocaine and consumption of alcohol. Wilson appealed from the denial of his petition seeking to have information about his arrest expunged from public records. Wilson’s point of contention is whether the document used by the state to accuse him, which culminated in the revocation of his community supervision, serves as an “information” charging him with commission of a felony. HOLDING:Affirmed. Expunction is a statutory privilege that is granted by and may be limited by the legislature, the court stated. Articles 55.01 and 55.02 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure set out the situations in which a person is entitled to expunction and the procedure to be followed in an expunction proceeding, the court stated. The issue as framed by both Wilson and the state was whether Wilson met his burden of proof under Article 55.01(a), which in part requires that no indictment or information be presented before the statute of limitations runs out, or if one such document has been presented, it later be dismissed or quashed. But the court found a different theory on which to uphold the trial court’s ruling. Wilson was not arrested for the commission of a crime but for the violation of the terms of his community supervision, the court noted. Indeed, one of the stated purposes of the arrest is not on its face a violation of any law and as phrased, the document does not allege violation of criminal statutes, either felony or misdemeanor, the court stated. It alleges only violations of the terms of his community supervision and seeks final adjudication of the offense for which he was on deferred adjudication, the court stated. For these reasons, the court found it immaterial whether the records pertaining to an arrest on one of the alleged violations of community supervision have been expunged or whether charges were ever filed on any of the allegations. Because Wilson did not met the requirements of the statute, the court concluded, he was not entitled to expungement. OPINION:Ross, J.; Morriss, C.J., and Ross and Carter, J.J.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.