Ex Parte Gregory P. Hatzis

ACCEPTED 12-14-00199-CV TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 1/20/2015 4:11:13 PM CATHY LUSK NO. 12-14-00199-CV CLERK

************** RECEIVED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 1/20/2015 4:11:13 PM TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF TEXAS CATHY S. LUSK Clerk

AT TYLER, TEXAS

*********

EX PARTE GREGORY P. HATZIS, 1/20/2015

*********

Appealed from the 7th District Court Smith County, Texas Trial Court No. 13-3026-A

__________________________________________________________________ BRIEF OF APPELLEE GREGORY P. HATZIS __________________________________________________________________

EBB B. MOBLEY RYAN HILL Attorney at Law Attorney at Law State Bar # 14238000 State Bar # 00785961 422 North Center Street 211 North Center Street P.O. Box 2309 P.O. Box 3369 Longview, TX 75606 Longview, Texas 75606 Telephone: 903-757-3331 Telephone: 903-753-3369 Facsimile: 903-753-8289 Facsimile: 903-758-3239 ebbmob@aol.com Ryanray1@aol.com

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED ONLY IF GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT

NO. 12-14-00199-CV

EX PARTE GREGORY P. HATZIS

__________________________________________________________________

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL __________________________________________________________________

Trial Court: Kerry L. Russell 7th Judicial District Court 100 North Broadway, Room 203 Tyler, Texas 75702 Appellee/Petitioner: Gregory P. Hatzis

Ryan R. Hill, Trial Counsel State Bar No. 00785961 P.O. Box 3369 Longview, Texas 75606 Ebb B. Mobley, Additional Counsel State Bar No. 14238000 422 North Center Street-Lower Level P.O. Box 2309 Longview, Texas 75606

Appellant/Respondent: Texas Department of Public Safety

D. Kaylyn Betts, Appellate Counsel State Bar No. 24064894 Jeanine C. Hudson, Trial Counsel State Bar No. 24048960 Crime Records Service (MSC 0234) P.O. Box 4143 Austin, Texas 78765-4143

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

STATEMENT OF FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

REPLY TO ISSUE NUMBER ONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Is Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 55.01 an “arrest-based” or an “offense-based” statute?

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8 REPLY TO ISSUE NUMBER TWO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 The entire available record provides more than a scintilla of evidence to establish that Mr. Hatzis did not and will not face jeopardy from his arrest for D.W.I.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-10 PRAYER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 .

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Cases

City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 807 (Tex. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9-10

Department of Transportation v. City of Sunset Valley, 146 S.W.3d 637, 642 (Tex. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549, 558 (Tex. 1995) . . . .9

Ex parte S.C., 305 S.W.3d 258, 260 (Tex.App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

F.F.P. Operating Partners, L.P. v. Duenez, 237 S.W.3d 680, 683 (Tex. 2007) . . . . .7

G.B.E. v. Texas Department of Public Safety, No. 14-0324, Texas Supreme Court petition for review denied, November 21, 2014 of opinion in No. 13-13-00017-CV, D.P.S. v. G.B.E., Austin Court of Appeals, opinion March 20, 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Harris County District Attorney v. Lacafta, 965 S.W.2d 568, 569 (Tex.App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no pet.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Heine v. Texas Department of Public Safety, 92 S.W.3d 642, 646 (Tex.App. - Austin 2002, pet. denied) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6,8,9 In re O.R.T., 414 S.W.3d 330, 332 (Tex.App. - El Paso 2013, no pet.) . . . . . . . . . . .7

In re State Bar of Texas, S.W.3d (Tex. 2014) (No. 13-0161; op. August 22, 2014) 2014 Tex. LEXIS 688 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 State v. Shumate, 199 S.W.3d 279, 284 (Tex. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Service v. Mega Child Care, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 170, 177 (Tex. 2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Texas Department of Public Safety v. Dicken, 415 S.W.3d 476, 478 (Tex.App. - San Antonio 2013, no pet.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Texas Department of Public Safety v. J.H.J., 274 S.W.3d 803, 806 (Tex.App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-8

Texas Department of Public Safety v. Nail, 305 S.W.3d 673, 674 (Tex.App. - Austin 2010, no pet.) (op. on reh’g) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 *4 Statutes

Code of Criminal Procedure Article 55.01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6,7 Government Code Ann §312.002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Government Code Ann §312.003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Government Code Ann §312.005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Texas Department of Public Safety brings a restricted appeal of an

expunction order in favor of GREGORY P. HATZIS.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Department has adequately summarized the procedural history of this case.

The evidence presented at a bench trial on January 17, 2014, is brief and uncontroverted.

The judge took judicial notice of the court’s file. RR 4, 8. Gregory Hatzis

testified that he was originally arrested only for misdemeanor driving while intoxicated. RR 6. That case was ultimately decided without any probation or deferred adjudication. RR 7.

The State did not question Mr. Hatzis or offer any evidence of any kind. After argument of counsel, the judge took the matter of expunction under advisement. RR

18. An order of expunction was signed and filed on February 24, 2014. CR-115. The Department contends that Mr. Hatzis was not entitled to have his record expunged because the face of the record establishes that his arrest for driving while

intoxicated resulted in a conviction for reckless driving.

The Department also contends that there is insufficient evidence to support the order of expunction.

REPLY TO ISSUE NUMBER ONE Is Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 55.01 an “arrest-based” or “offense-based”

statute?

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The trial court correctly applied an “offense-based” analysis of Article 55.01 under an amendment by the Legislature in 2011.

ARGUMENT STATUTE AT ISSUE

The statute to be construed in this case is Code of Criminal Procedure Article

55.01, a copy of which is attached as an appendix to the State’s brief. The State contends the trial court misconstrued the expunction statutes to

permit an “offense-based” analysis rather than an “arrest-based” analysis, thereby permitting the trial court to expunge a D.W.I. charge arising from his arrest. On the

other hand, Mr. Hatzis asserts the trial court correctly applied an “offense-based” analysis under the expunction statutes due to an amendment by the Legislature in 2011.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

An abuse of discretion standard is used in reviewing trial court rulings on petitions for expunction. See Heine v. Texas Department of Public Safety, 92 S.W.3d 642, 646 (Tex.App. - Austin 2002, pet. denied). To the extent a ruling on expunction turns on a question of law, however, the ruling is de novo, because a trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts. Texas

Department of Public Safety v. Dicken, 415 S.W.3d 476, 478 (Tex.App. - San Antonio 2013, no pet.). “A trial court abuses its discretion if it orders an expunction

of records despite a petitioner’s failure to satisfy all of the statutory requirements.”

In re O.R.T., 414 S.W.3d 330, 332 (Tex.App. - El Paso 2013, no pet.). When construing statutes under a de novo standard of review, the primary

objective is to ascertain and give effect to the Legislature’s intent. Texas Government Code Ann §312.005 (West 2005). See F.F.P. Operating Partners, L.P. v. Duenez,

237 S.W.3d 680, 683 (Tex. 2007). To discern that intent, the actual words of the

statute are examined. Texas Government Code Ann. §312.002, 312.003 (West 2013). See State v. Shumate, 199 S.W.3d 279, 284 (Tex. 2006). If a statute is

unambiguous, this court must adopt the interpretation supported by its plain

language, unless such an interpretation would lead to absurd results that the Legislature could not possibly have intended. Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Service v. Mega Child Care, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 170, 177 (Tex. 2004). This

court should consider statutes as a whole rather than as isolated provisions. Department of Transportation v. City of Sunset Valley, 146 S.W.3d 637, 642 (Tex.

2004). EXPUNCTION

The remedy of expunction allows a person who has been arrested for the commission of an offense to have the records and files relating to the arrest expunged

if he meets the statutory requirements of Article 55.01. See Texas Department of Public Safety v. Nail, 305 S.W.3d 673, 674 (Tex.App. - Austin 2010, no pet.) (op. on reh’g). A petitioner’s right to expunction is neither a constitutional nor common-law right; rather, it is a statutory privilege. Ex parte S.C., 305 S.W.3d 258, 260 (Tex.App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.). All of the statutory provisions are mandatory and exclusive, and the petitioner is entitled to expunction only when all statutory conditions have been met. Texas Department of Public Safety v. J.H.J., 274 S.W.3d *8 803, 806 (Tex.App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.). The trial court has no

equitable power to permit expunction where it is not allowed. Id. Further, although the expunction statute appears in the code of criminal procedure, an expunction

proceeding is civil in nature. Harris County District Attorney v. Lacafta, 965 S.W.2d 568, 569 (Tex.App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no pet.), and the petitioner carries the

burden of proving compliance with the statutory requirements. Heine, 92 S.W.3d at 646.

ANALYSIS

Since the State filed its brief on August, 2014, numerous courts of appeal have considered this question and appear to have adopted an “arrest-based” analysis. See

Brief Exhibit A. The Texas Supreme Court on November 21, 2014, in No. 14-0324, G.B.E. v. Texas Department of Pubic Safety, declined to clarify this question where

the issue was squarely considered by the Austin Court of Appeals in No. 03-13- 00017-CV, Texas Department of Public Safety v. G.B.E., in its March 20, 2014,

opinion. None of the above cases shed light on whether the statutory term “arrest” refers to each individual charge for which a person is arrested, or the group of charges

arising out of a single incident of arrest.

The purpose of the expunction statute “serves to protect wrongfully accused people by eradicating their arrest records. In re State Bar of Texas, S.W.3d

(Tex 2014) (No.13-0161; op. August 22, 2014) 2014 Tex. LEXIS 688. Applying this rationale to Hatzis’ case, he was wrongfully accused of D.W.I but thereafter rightfully accused of reckless driving. As a result, Mr. Hatzis should be able to expunge the D.W.I. arrest record, while government agencies including DPS may retain copies of his conviction for reckless driving.

REPLY TO ISSUE NUMBER TWO The entire available record provides more than a scintilla of evidence to

establish that Mr. Hatzis did not and will not face “jeopardy” from his arrest for

D.W.I.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

For purposes of a restricted appeal, the face of the record consists of all papers

on file in the appeal. The Reporter’s Record at bar includes testimony by Appellee Gregory Hatzis. The entire available record provides more than a scintilla of

evidence to establish that Mr. Hatzis did not and will not face “jeopardy” from his arrest for D.W.I. ARGUMENT A trial court’s order granting or denying expunction is reviewed for “abuse of discretion.” See Heine v. Texas Department of Public Safety, 92 S.W.3d 642, 646

(Tex.App. - Austin 2002, pet. denied). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts

“without reference to any guiding rules or principles.” E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549, 558 (Tex. 1995). However, if an expunction ruling

turns on a question of law, a ‘trial court has no ‘discretion’ in determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts.” See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992). Thus, a trial court abuses its discretion if it misinterprets or misapplies

the law. Id. When reviewing a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, the

evidence is reviewed in the light most favorable to the judgment, crediting favorable

evidence if reasonable jurors could and disregarding contrary evidence unless reasonable jurors could not. City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 807 (Tex.

2005). A legal sufficiency complaint is sustained if the record reveals (1) the

complete absence of a vital fact; (2) the court is barred by rules of law or evidence from giving weight to the only evidence offered to prove a vital fact; (3) the evidence

offered to prove a vital fact is no more than a mere scintilla; or (4) the evidence conclusively establishes the opposite of the vital fact. See id. At 810.

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER For the reasons stated in this brief, Appellee prays that the trial court’s

judgment be affirmed.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ RYAN HILL EBB B. MOBLEY RYAN HILL Attorney at Law Attorney at Law State Bar # 14238000 State Bar # 00785961 422 North Center Street 211 North Center Street P.O. Box 2309 P.O. Box 3369 Longview, TX 75606 Longview, Texas 75606 Telephone: 903-757-3331 Telephone: 903-753-3369 Facsimile: 903-753-8289 Facsimile: 903-758-3239 ebbmob@aol.com Ryanray1@aol.com

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I certify that this brief contains words according to the computer program used to prepare the document. /s/ RYAN HILL RYAN HILL

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of this brief was served on opposing counsel by email on the 20th day of January, 2015.

/s/ RYAN HILL RYAN HILL

APPENDIX

Ex parte T.C., No. 12-13-00138-CV, Tyler Court of Appeals, opinion date August 20, 2014, no pet.

D.P.S. v. Ibarra, No. 13-13-00656-CV, Corpus Christi Court of Appeals, opinion September 2, 2014, rehearing en banc pending.

D.P.S. v. K.J.H., No. 09-14-00042-CV, Beaumont Court of Appeals, opinion September 4, 2014, 2014 Tex.App. LEXIS 9945, no pet.

Ex parte Broseh, No. 11-13-00158-CV, Eastland Court of Appeals, opinion September 4, 2014, no pet.

Ex parte Hiojosa, No. 13-14-00084-CV, Corpus Christi Court of Appeals, opinion September 4, 2014, no pet.

Ex parte Post, No. 07-14-00138-CV, Amarillo Court of Appeals, opinion September 24, 2014, no pet.

G.B.E. v. D.P.S., No. 14-0324, Texas Supreme Court petition for review denied, November 21, 2014 of opinion in No. 13-13-00017-CV, D.P.S. v. G.B.E., Austin Court of Appeals, opinion March 20, 2014. D.P.S. v. J.W.D., No. 03-14-00101-CV, Austin Court of Appeals, opinion December 31, 2014.

Ex parte S.D., No. 07-13-00168-CV, Amarillo Court of Appeals, opinion January 15, 2015.