Ex Parte N.T.W. v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals
Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-24-00060-CV

Ex parte N.T.W.

On appeal from the
272nd District Court of Brazos County, Texas
Judge John L. Brick, presiding
Trial Court Cause No. 23-001095-CV-272

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N.T.W. appeals the portion of the trial court’s order denying the

expunction of his Evading Arrest or Detention prosecution records. N.T.W.

argues that former article 55.01(a)(2)(A) and (B) provide alternative paths for

misdemeanor expunction under the offense-based Texas expunction scheme

and that under article 55.01(a)(2)(B), N.T.W. is entitled to expunction. We

agree. Because we find that N.T.W. met all statutory requirements under

article 55.01(a)(2)(B), we reverse and render judgment that N.T.W. is entitled

to expunction for the offense of Evading Arrest or Detention.
Background

On January 19, 2016, N.T.W. was arrested in Brazos County for

Evading Arrest or Detention. The Brazos County Attorney’s Office filed a

formal information and complaint, alleging that N.T.W. committed a Class A

misdemeanor offense of Evading Arrest or Detention. Pursuant to a plea

negotiation in which N.T.W. pleaded guilty to the Class C misdemeanor

offense of Disorderly Conduct, the Brazos County Attorney’s Office dismissed

the Evading Arrest charge on June 30, 2016.

N.T.W. was then placed on 180 days deferred disposition for the related

Disorderly Conduct offense. After N.T.W. successfully completed his deferred

disposition, the Brazos County Attorney’s Office subsequently dismissed the

Disorderly Conduct charge on December 26, 2016.

On April 9, 2023, N.T.W. filed a Petition seeking to expunge the records

of the dismissed Evading Arrest or Detention prosecution and the related

completed Disorderly Conduct deferred adjudication. The Trial Court issued

a written Order Partially Granting Petition for Expunction, granting the

request to expunge the Disorderly Conduct charge but denying the

expunction on the Evading Arrest charge on the grounds that article

55.01(a)(2)(A)(ii) precludes expunction for a case where an indictment or

Ex parte N.T.W. Page 2
information has been filed, and the Petitioner does not meet the criteria

listed in that section.

On December 29, 2023, N.T.W. filed a Motion for New Trial, which was

denied on February 6, 2024. N.T.W appealed the portion of the Order

denying the expunction Petition as to the Evading Arrest or Detention

prosecution request.

Standard of Review and Applicable Law

A trial court’s ruling on a petition for expunction is reviewed for abuse

of discretion, but the meaning of a statute is a question of law reviewed de

novo. Ex parte R.P.G.P., 623 S.W.3d 313, 317 (Tex. 2021). Here, the trial

court’s ruling on N.T.W.’s expunction request hinged on a question of law

because it required an interpretation of article 55.01; therefore, we review the

ruling de novo. State v. T.S.N., 547 S.W.3d 617, 620 (Tex. 2018); City of

Rockwall v. Hughes, 246 S.W.3d 621, 625 (Tex. 2008) (stating that statutory

construction is a question of law).

Article 55.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure sets forth the

requirements for the expunction of criminal records. A person is only entitled

to expunction if 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.). Because expunction is a “privilege defined by the Legislature,”

Ex parte N.T.W. Page 3
the statutory requirements are “mandatory and exclusive and cannot be

equitably expanded by the courts.” Ex parte R.P.G.P., 623 S.W.3d at 316. As

applicable to this case, article 55.01(a)(2) states:

(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:
…
(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, provided that:

(A) regardless of whether any statute of limitations exists for the
offense and whether any limitations period for the offense has
expired, an indictment or information charging the person with
the commission of a misdemeanor offense based on the person's
arrest or charging the person with the commission of any felony
offense arising out of the same transaction for which the person
was arrested:
…
(ii) if presented at any time following the arrest, was
dismissed or quashed, and the court finds that the
indictment or information was dismissed or quashed
because:
…
(d) the presentment had been made because of
mistake, false information, or other similar reason
indicating absence of probable cause at the time of
the dismissal to believe the person committed the
offense; or

(e) the indictment or information was void; or

(B) prosecution of the person for the offense for which the
person was arrested is no longer possible because the
limitations period has expired.

Ex parte N.T.W. Page 4
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 55.01(a)(2) (emphasis added).

Statutes are analyzed “‘as a cohesive, contextual whole’ with the goal of

effectuating the Legislature’s intent,” and reading the plain language of the

statute “in context, not isolation.” Ex parte R.P.G.P., 623 S.W.3d at 317

(citing State v. T.S.N., 547 S.W.3d 617, 620 (Tex. 2018)); Ross v. St. Luke's

Episcopal Hosp., 462 S.W.3d 496, 501 (Tex. 2015). Courts should not

interpret statutes in a manner that renders any portion superfluous or

meaningless. Crosstex Energy Servs., L.P. v. Pro Plus, Inc., 430 S.W.3d 384,

390 (Tex. 2014) (quoting Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, Inc. v. Hogue,

271 S.W.3d 238, 256 (Tex. 2008)).

Analysis

In his sole issue, N.T.W. asserts that former article 55.01(a)(2)(A) and

(B) provide alternative paths for misdemeanor expunction under the offense-

based Texas expunction scheme. N.T.W. argues that he is entitled to

expunction because he satisfies the requirements of 55.01(a)(2)(B). The State

argues that because an information was filed charging N.T.W. with Evading

Arrest, and he does not meet the requirements of 55.01(a)(2)(A), N.T.W. is not

entitled to an expunction of his Evading Arrest charge.

The State’s interpretation is at odds with the plain language of article

55.01(a)(2), which divides (a)(2)(A) and (B) with the word “or.” See TEX. CODE

Ex parte N.T.W. Page 5
CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 55.01(a)(2). Had the Legislature intended to require

that a person seeking expunction satisfy both (A) and (B), it could have

instead joined the subsections using “and.” Therefore, in construing the

statute consistent with the plain meaning of its language, we find that a

person who has been arrested is entitled to expunction relating to the arrest

under 55.01(a)(2)(B) if: (1) the person has been released; (2) the charge has

not resulted in a final conviction and is no longer pending; (3) there was no

court-ordered community supervision for the offense, and (4) prosecution for

the evading arrest charge is no longer possible because the statute of

limitations period has expired. Ex parte N.B.J., 552 S.W.3d 376, 380 (Tex.

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.).

An information has been presented in this case, so the State contends

that N.T.W. must satisfy one of the statutory requirements set forth beneath

(a)(2)(A)(ii). However, proper statutory interpretation requires that we read

subsections (A) and (B) as separate and alternative pathways to expunction

because they are separated by the word “or.” Although (A)(ii) is applicable

when an information has been presented following the arrest, nothing within

the statute indicates that (A)(ii) must apply when an information has been

presented. The Legislature included (B) as a path to expunction regardless of

Ex parte N.T.W. Page 6
whether an information was presented, giving N.T.W. a route to expunction

independent of (A)(i) and (ii). See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 55.01(a)(2).

The State argues that N.T.W.’s interpretation is inconsistent with

Legislative intent. Considering the recent non-substantive changes to the

relevant statute, we disagree. The Legislature rewrote 55.01(a)(2)(B) as a

standalone article reading: “A person to whom this subchapter applies is

entitled to have all records and files relating to the arrest expunged if

prosecution of the person for the offense for which the person was arrested is

no longer possible because the limitations period has expired.” TEX. CODE

CRIM. PRO. ANN. art. 55A.054. Reading 55A.054 in conjunction with 55A.051,

which lists the expunction prerequisites formerly within 55.01(a)(2), indicates

the Legislature intended former article 55.01(a)(2)(B) as an alternative

pathway to expunction, distinct from (a)(2)(A).

The Texas Supreme Court recently revisited the offense-based versus

arrest-based entitlement to expunction under article 55.01(a)(2). Ex parte

R.P.G.P., 623 S.W.3d at 325. After analyzing the statutory language of

article 55.01(a)(2)(A), the Supreme Court concluded that misdemeanor

offenses are eligible for expunction on an individual basis. Id. at 315. The

Court also found that the prerequisites to expunction in article 55.01(a)(2)

are offense-based. Id. at 323. (“The alteration from ‘any’ to ‘the’ indicates the

Ex parte N.T.W. Page 7
Legislature’s intent to change, or at least clarify, that arrests are tied to

single offenses for the purpose of satisfying the requirements in (a)(2).”).

Following the offense-based approach, Texas appellate courts considering

expunctions under 55.01(a)(2)(B) have treated it as separate and distinct

from the requirements of (a)(2)(A), granting expunction requests when the

petitioner has satisfied the prerequisites of (a)(2) and the applicable statute

of limitations had expired. Ex parte R.J.F., 640 S.W.3d 365, 370 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2022, no pet.); Ex parte N.B.J., 552 S.W.3d at 380. See

Ex parte E.A., No. 02-23-00231-CV, 2024 WL 482871, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort

Worth Feb. 8, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op.).

The record reflects that N.T.W. has been released, his Evading Arrest

charge has not resulted in a final conviction and is no longer pending, there

was no court-ordered community supervision for the offense, and the

applicable statute of limitations has expired. N.T.W. thus satisfies all the

requirements under 55.01(a)(2)(B) and is therefore entitled to an expunction

of his Evading Arrest charge.

Conclusion

We find that former article 55.01(a)(2)(A) and (B) provide alternative

paths for misdemeanor expunction under the offense-based Texas expunction

scheme, and under article 55.01(a)(2)(B), N.T.W. is entitled to expunction.

Ex parte N.T.W. Page 8
We reverse and render judgment that N.T.W. is entitled to expunction for the

offense of Evading Arrest or Detention regarding the portion of the trial

court’s order denying the expunction on the Evading Arrest charge.

LEE HARRIS
Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: May 7, 2026
Before Chief Justice Johnson,
Justice Smith, and
Justice Harris
Reversed and rendered
CV06

Ex parte N.T.W. Page 9