Ex parte Tommy Leon Jones From the 82nd District Court Robertson County, Texas Trial Court No. 10-07-18619-CV MEMORANDUM Opinion Tommy Leon Jones filed a petition for expunction with the trial court on the grounds that he was “acquitted” by this Court and, therefore, entitled to expunction. See Jones v. State, No. 10-07-00365-CR, 2008 Tex.App. LEXIS 6010 (Tex.App.-Waco Aug. 6, 2008, no pet.) (memo.op). After a hearing, the trial court denied Jones's petition. We affirm. An expunction hearing is a civil, not criminal, proceeding. Texas Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Deck, 954 S.W.2d 108, 111 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, no pet.). The procedures listed in article 55.02 are mandatory and must be complied with in an expunction proceeding. Id. 112; Texas Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Riley, 773 S.W.2d 756, 758 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1989, no writ). See Bargas v. State, 164 S.W.3d 763, 771 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2005, no pet.) (“Where a cause of action is derived solely from a statute, the statutory provisions are mandatory, exclusive, and must be complied with or the action is not maintainable.”). The petitioner therefore carries the burden of proving that 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). A person's entitlement to expunction arises only after all statutory conditions have been met even if the person claims entitlement to expunction due to an acquittal. Id.; Bargas, 164 S.W.3d at 773. The trial court must strictly comply with the statutory requirements, and has no equitable power to extend the protections of the expunction statute beyond its stated provisions. Id.; Bargas, 164 S.W.3d at 771.
Jones's petition did not comply with the basic requirements of article 55.02. The petition was not verified, and Jones did not provide his driver's license number, the address at the time of his arrest, and the date of the offense charged was alleged to have been committed. Tex.Code Crim Proc. Ann. art. 55.02, Sec. 2(b) (West Supp.2010). Because Jones did not satisfy the statutory requirements for expunction, the trial court did not err in denying Jones's petition for expunction.
The trial court's judgment is affirmed.