THE STATE OF TEXAS v. J.P., Appellee (2025)

DISSENTING OPINION

Affirmed in Part, Reversed and Rendered in Part, and Majority and Dissenting Opinions filed May 22, 2025.

I respectfully dissent. The statutory framework in Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 55A vests the trial court with broad discretion in determining whether to allow the prosecution to retain records when a person is entitled to an expunction order following an acquittal.¹ Notably, when the Legislature revised Chapter 55 in 2023, it made no changes to the provision conferring this discretion. Its decision not to alter the language governing judicial discretion strongly signals an intent to preserve the trial court's broad authority.

On appeal, the State sought only the first exception which provides the “court may provide in the expunction order that the law enforcement agency and the prosecuting attorney retain records and files if the records and files are necessary to conduct a subsequent investigation and prosecution other than the person who is subject to the expunction order ․” See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 55A.302(b)(1) (emphasis added). The State appears to concede on appeal that the second exception which places the burden on the prosecutor at the evidentiary hearing to have proven a need to retain the records was either not met or does not apply. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art.55A.302(b)(2). I agree it was not.

We are required to draw every reasonable inference supported by the record in favor of the trial court's judgment. Here, the trial court presided over the jury trial that led to the acquittal. This means the trial judge ruling on the expunction order was uniquely familiar with the facts of the underlying case. She was able to judge the credibility of the witnesses, consider the opposing legal theories and knew the charges against the co-defendant had been dismissed. The trial court further granted an evidentiary hearing allowing the State to present evidence of any future investigations requiring preservation of the records.

In Texas, a finding of abuse of discretion is not to be made lightly. It is not enough that an appellate court might have ruled differently. The standard requires a clear showing that the trial court acted in a way that was arbitrary, unreasonable, or without guiding legal principles. Here, the trial judge acted within her lawful authority, weighing evidence before her and applying the correct legal standards. Nothing in this record justifies disturbing the judgment.

FOOTNOTES

1.   This dissent cites to the current expunction statutes codified in Chapter 55A. See Act of May 19, 2023, 88th Leg., R.S., ch. 765, § 1.001, Art. 55A.302, 2023 Tex. Gen Laws 1837, 1928. However, at the evidentiary hearing at issue, Chapter 55 was still in effect. See Act of May 19, 2023, 88th Leg., R.S., ch. 765, § 3.001(6) (repealing Chapter 55 effective January 1, 2025), 2023 Tex. Gen Laws 1837, 1974. The applicable language regarding a person who is the subject of an expunction order on the basis of an acquittal is unchanged in the non-substantive recodification.

Tonya McLaughlin Justice