Archie Scaife v. State

Opinion

ACCEPTED

03-14-00274-CR

3661941

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

1/6/2015 11:04:07 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/6/2015 11:04:07 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM PAGE

Index of Authorities ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..... 4

Statement Regarding Oral Argument ... ..................... ...... ..... .......... ... 5

Statement of the Case ... ........ ......... ...... .... ........... ....... ... ......... ...... ........ 5

Statement of Facts ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... .... 5

Summary of State's Argument ............................................................ 7

Argument and Authorities ......... ... ... ... ................................................ 7

First Issue on Appeal ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..... 7 TRIAL COURT ERR IN PERMITTING DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY IN EXPUNCTION HEARING?

Application and Analysis ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 8

Second Issue of Appeal ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..... 9 TRIAL COURT ABUSE DISCRETION IN DENYING PETITION FOR EXPUNCTION WHERE PETITIONER HAD BEEN CON- VICTED OF OFFENSE ARISING OUT OF THE SAME ARREST?

Standard of Review ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... 9

Application and Analysis .................. ........ .... ............... .. . 10

Prayer................................................................................................... 12

3

Certificate of Compliance with Rule 9 .............................................. 12

Certificate of Service ............... ........................................................... 13

Appendix ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ...... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ...... ... ... ... .. ... 14

Indictment Cause No. 59822

Information Cause No. 62960

Judgment of Conviction Cause No. 62960

Motion to Dismiss and Order Cause No. 59822

4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES PAGE

Texas Department of Public Safety v. Butler, ..................................... 8, 9 941 S.W.2d 318 (Tx. App. Corpus Christi 13th Dist. 1997 no pet.)

Texas Department of Public Safety v. G.B.E., ...................................... 10, 11 No. 03-13-00017-CV, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 3195 (Tx. App. Austin 3rct Dist. 2014 no pet.), not designated for publication.

Travis County District Attorney v. M.M., ............................................. 9 - 11 354 S.W.3d 920 (Tx. App. Austin 3rct Dist. 2011 no pet.)

OTHER

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure

Article 55.01 .............................................................................. 10

Article 55.01(a)(2) .................................................................... 10

5

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT The State does not request oral argument.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Appellant, Archie Scaife, filed a pro se Petition for Expunction

of Criminal Record seeking expunction of his arrest by the Killeen Police

Department for the offense of Aggravated Assault on a Public Servant on

May 13, 2006. That arrest resulted in his indictment in Cause No.

59,882 in the District Court of Bell County, Texas. (CR-6).

The Texas Department of Public Safety filed an answer to that

petition. (CR-153).

After a hearing the Trial Court entered Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law (CR-259) and denied the expunction. (CR-205).

The Appellant filed a motion for new trial (CR-263) which was

denied by the trial court after a hearing. (CR-301).

STATEMENT OF FACTS

After hearing and receiving evidence the trial court entered the

following Findings of Fact:

1. Petitioner was arrested by the Killeen Police Department on

May 2, 2006.

6

2. As a result of that arrest the Petitioner was charged with the

offense of Aggravated Assault on a Police Officer in Cause No.

59,822. Petitioner was also charged with the offense of

Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by information in Cause No.

62,960.

3. The arrests in Cause Nos. 59,822 and 62,960 arose out of the

same arrest.

4. On May 13, 2008, the Petitioner entered a plea of guilty in

Cause No. 62,920 to the offense of Unlawful Possession of a

Firearm by a Felon in the 27th District Court of Bell County,

Texas and received a sentence of 4 years in the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice.

5. The charge in Cause No. 59,922 was dismissed because the

Petitioner plead guilty in the companion case in Cause No.

62,960. (CR-259)

Copies of the indictment in Cause No. 59,822 for which the Petitioner

seeks an expunction (CR-157), the complaint charging the Petitioner

with the offense of Unlawful Possession of a Firearm in Cause No.

62,960 (CR-158), the Judgment of Conviction in Cause No. 62,960, and

7

the Motion and Order Dismissing Cause No. 59,822 because the

Petitioner plead guilty in a companion case (CR-12) are all set out in the

Appendix.

SUMMARY OF STATE'S ARGUMENT

Although each of the persons and law enforcement agencies are

entitled to individual representation in an expunction proceeding,

nevertheless the District Attorney of the county may represent all of

them at the hearing should they opt not to attend.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition

for expunction because the Appellant entered a plea of guilty and was

convicted of an offense that arose out of the same arrest as that sought

to be expunged. The offense made the subject of the expunction request

was dismissed solely on the ground that the Appellant had pled guilty in

the companion case arising from the same transaction.

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

First Issue on Appeal

Did the trial court err in permitting the Assistant District Attorney

to represent and present the objections of the Texas Department of

Public Safety in the expunction hearing?

8

Application and Analysis

In this case the Texas Department of Public Safety filed an answer

to the Appellant's petition for expunction. The District Attorney did not.

Nevertheless the Bell County District Attorney's office appeared at the

hearing and presented the matters raised in the Department of Public

Safety's answer to the petition.

The law governing expunctions presents a unique situation in

which all persons and agencies that are parties to the expunction share

interwoven and identical interests and common goals that are achieved

by the maintenance of criminal records. Because an expunction is a civil

proceeding each agency is entitled to represent itself and is not bound

by the actions of the District Attorney. That does not mean, however,

that each of the concerned agencies are not represented by the District

Attorney. Coordination among agencies is mandated by the application

of the relief granted or denied. Relief granted or denied is applicable to

all. Texas Department of Public Safety v. Butler, 941 S.W.2d 318, 320

(Tx. App. Corpus Christi, 13th Dist. 1997 no pet.).

The District Attorney of the county is the primary representative

of the State and thus of the interests of all of the parties and agencies

concerned. In fact, having prosecuted the case, he or she is in the best

9

position to defend against the petition for expunction. Where the

individual agency does not choose to attend and participate in the

hearing, the District Attorney represents its interests in the

proceedings. Texas Department of Public Safety v. Butler at 320.

The trial court did not err in permitting the Bell County District

Attorney's Office to appear and represent the Texas Department of

Public Safety in the hearing.

Second Issue on Appeal

Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying the petition for

expunction because the case was dismissed on the grounds that the

Appellant had plead guilty to a companion charge that arose out of the

same arrest and was convicted?

Standard of Review

Rulings on petitions for expunction are reviewed under an abuse

of discretion standard. A trial court abuses its discretion only if it acts

arbitrarily or unreasonably, without reference to guiding rules and

principles of law. The decision is reviewed de novo. Travis County

District Attorney v. M.M., 354 S.W.3d 920, 922 (Tx. App. Austin 3rct Dist.

2011 no pet.).

10

Application and Analysis

Expunction is neither a constitutional nor a common law right, but

rather a statutory privilege. It is governed by Article 55.01 of the Texas

Code of Criminal Procedure. A person is entitled to expunction only

when all of the statutory conditions have been met. The trial court is

without the power to extend relief beyond the clear meaning of the

statute. Travis County District Attorney v. M.M. at 923.

A person is not entitled to have any arrest records arising from a

multi-charge arrest expunged under Article 55.01(a)(2) when (1) one or

more charges result in a conviction for that charge and (2) any

remaining charge is dismissed as a result of a conviction of any charge

from the same arrest. Texas Department of Public Safety v. G.B. E., No. 03-

13-00017-CV, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 3195, (Tx. App. Austin 3rd Dist.

2014), not designated for publication, op. at page 12.

In this case the evidence is clear and undisputed that the

Appellant was arrested as a result of a single transaction for offenses of

Aggravated Assault on a Police Officer and Unlawful Possession of a

Firearm by a Felon. It is equally undisputed that the Appellant entered

a plea of guilty and was convicted of the offense of Unlawful Possession

of a Firearm by a Felon.

11

The offense of Aggravated Assault of a Police Officer was then

dismissed solely upon the grounds that the Appellant had entered his

plea of guilty to the same transaction offense of Unlawful Possession of

a Firearm.

The fact situation is identical to that in Texas Department of Public

Safety v. G.B.E. and, exactly as in that case the Appellant has failed to

establish that all of the statutory requirements necessary for expunction

have been fulfilled. The burden to do so is upon the Petitioner. Travis

County District Attorney v. M.M. at 923. The trial court certainly did not

abuse its discretion in denying the expunction.

12

PRAYER

The State of Texas respectfully prays that the order denying the

petition for expunction herein be, in all things, be affirmed.

Respectfully Submitted,

HENRY GARZA District Attorney

fs/ $a6 ~. flrlmn BOB D. ODOM Assistant District Attorney P.O. Box 540 Belton, Tx 76513 (254) 933-5215 FAX (254) 933-5704 DistrictAttorney@co.bell.tx.us SBA No. 15200000

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 9

This is to certify that the State's Brief is in compliance with Rule 9

of the Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure and that portion which must be

included under Rule 9.4(i)(1) contains 1141 words.

Is/ $a6 ~. fJrfmn BOB D. ODOM Assistant District Attorney

13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of this brief has been

served upon, Archie Terrell Scaife #1582863, Appellant pro se, by

depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage paid, return

receipt requested, addressed to him at James Byrd Unit, 21 FM 247,

Huntsville, Texas 77320, on this 6th day of January, 2015.

/sf $a6 fb. flrlmn BOB D. ODOM Assistant District Attorney

14

Appendix

157

' - - - - - - - · - -- - - ....

IN~~oof~~,~ ay:,~trmoRITf·aF THE.: sTAtE t>.E. ~: ·.~ .: YaKOJtAifi>~b'tb&t~ot~st..e.orT~duJ1~· em~ .Worn~·· ad _.; .. ~Hi.~ IQC!iiu tlunJ~ Tetm. ~;o. 2006 of tbe ~~~~'~~eo:. -ki ~11. ~ ·~ ~ .

oatbi..__.t

. -~·

in aDd to eiUd caart at Mid tum that .

.· .

..

.......

b.ereU2after atyJed ~·ot. OD ar •bout the 13th da,y ot Yay A. D. 2006, and before tbe pntmtment or tbJa~ mtbe CoaotiJ _... Stida .....-.,

. ,: .

i

·I

(' ~ >- L,; ; $ ~

~.-><

. ~.- w

~

0 X

4

· -~~

c

UJ "' 7.

-:)

-u.. _J 0'1 ' ·• • J ' l

._J ;s .,p 8C"oo

Dlttrtct A&tlDmey ~th Judicial Dl8trict ofTexaa. Foreman of the.Ot.ad Jury

158

. ..

DA ~INFORMATION- GENE.. L . ' . ~. .· .. ,. ·.

• • •• • . .q ... _ • • : :',!:· .l~i.:H~·~.--- ....~: ,. -.- ·. _L·.:..::::~._~·,.-~Jtfllft.i?~=-=--~=--· . . -: :___ _:·.:: = ... ~tHE ~AME ..\Nb BYTfrE At.frHORitY OF THE STATE·dF TExAs

·COMES NOW HenryL. 'Garza, Oistrict Attomeyofthe 27tb·Judiciai District, Bell County, Texas~ and presents in and to the :.$26th District Court of said County, that heretofore and before the Presentinent o(this informatio11; .ARCHIE TERRELL SCAIFE, on or about the 13th day of May, A. D~-. 2006, in the Co.unty an4 -~tate aforesaid, Did·tbcD llld:tbcn, baviDa beca convicted of tho fe1oD:y otfcae ofPoueuion ofCoadne leu 1ban ODe snm, Go~ t?lii·day of Aupt, 2001. ia C11111D IIUIIlbci' S1,207, in tbe 264th Judicial Diltrict Court 9fBell ~'Tau., in a cue 011 th8 docbt ofllid Court md cmtitled The Stlde ofTaua ~:'Arcbi~'f.errall ~ iutaJticmalJy ot•bowiualY poiiDII a :titelrm before the fifth ~. of tho cWWnntNeleue &om oonfiiMIDent fOlloWing convidion of INiid felony • ,• ''. '·· r ' ;""

against the peace :-

and djgnity

.. of the

·.

S~; ..

. ·, .·.·

¥ ,

.. ··:··:41'

WTI'tffiSs ~YMM!hiS " fQ,.Jil&y of A. 0., 2008

HENRY L. GARZA, DISTRICT ATIORNEY

.,

CD

.-ocn

il

~~ = r-

:z: :E

> N

m

;;r ~ c::

Ji )C-tZ

"'0 -F. c

-.1 -< C6l

•

I .,. ·~,raza?m msnuCT · ....... . : ..

I .;

I .. C~UBT

I

I BI:LL CoUNTY, TExAs .. ·. I ST1;~ ID No.: fX 068851M I _·i'::.-

t;~ . JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION BY COURT-WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL ' ' 0 0 0 0 0 : ~: ' 0 ,, 0 0 -: M

1118/J003

JON JON MCDuBM.l'M'

N/A

Date,&.inc.oce ImpeNd:

'·•'· :.·

15118/JOOS . Data Seatenoe to Commaaca: G/1812008 Pu.ailbaat ud Plaoa oiCopbtmeat: · FOUR (4) YEARS INSTITUTION~ DMSION, TDCJ

(J;.mNC.OP CONFI~ aUBPIHDBD, Dll'INIWft' PlACID ON COMMIJNlTY 9UPDVIS10N li'OR N/A .

· llil'5 CQ!iitfqeg· · JWtjtgti.ma.; Jut;itutiOP Pamle fA:

ssu.oo /tiOO.OO CJ VICTIM(,.. below) 0 sN/A At*onaey $N/A AGENCY/AGENT (... below)

Fe ·

~.OS.1Uler. Betbtr&tioD ltequl"tn.Dta do not apply to the Deteadaat. Tlx. CODJ CJUW. hoc. chapter 82 '£M ,. ot~vicUID at d. time o!~ 61188 wu NIA .

· . · Jfpn45a$·:4 lliiiiibiw 'A fD f&1i..., ;;;;;;;;*' Miid-jj~ibn•• +Rfi:....

Tiat . C1'ecliW: fi-pd•DC Ia 1Q 11m Wir.;,eip "!P''rWl gc is ""'qMittpwaaiiMcu4.ngete "'MtdaJimdfW belpw ·. N/ADAYS .: NOTES! N/A . . . <lif;;;tL;fU "'_...,._.... 11 ......_....._. . 1ai aP::;wJIIM .......... lltlle ,...._. Mlow '"reteiu-

'

I

I

i

~-------------------------------------------------------------------------· 159

~1

160

Clerk: SB

0

_, IJJ --

82960

LL

lUcht Thumbprint

.........

161

<•'··

f~. . .. ..

.. :_': ;

........ ;

;t. . . ';/!':

:-:...

-r,·.

.. ~. . .

'IHBSTATS OF 'I$XAS IN THB DlS'l'IUCr COUllT ;

vs.

I

•' . . ·. OP . COUN'rY' TBXAS . BBI.L .j .: .: . ;;· Scg,:g ,Acd·'~ ?ih•/l I !

[i., i , "

I

i

- -· · ~

~r

-< I

.. w r :I ~-

"'0 m

·,· ..

fY1 '"0

X

2:;:~

:::, w c

c:: -4 ~

~··~-· ~J?~.~·------~am-·-d a. IS TO'CERTIPY/~AT TRB FlNGBBl'RlNTS ABOVB.ARB THBABOvB NAMHD

1

'i

DEFBNI>ANT'S·'PIN~ TAimN AT nm:m.m OP't)ISPOSJ'IlON OFTHB I ·,ABOVBSTYI.Eo ·.

AND .1::!';':.

Ni:JMBBRBO

.

CAUSB.

.

·..... !

DONB 'I'HJ.S THB __../.._ ·}_-"'!T)AY Of /J ~y 2008 ' ,,

I.

I

/}·!/It Taking

Official Print

I

.I I!

*Indicate hare if print othor "than defendant'a right thumbprint is placed in box.

D

0 0~"------

DATE:

- . · ;. . .' May 9, 2008- FILING AGENCY Killeen Police Department e '·' """~·- ·~ c··,.0.. P , ' "'

OFFENSE: AGGRAVATED ASSAULT AGAINST A PUBLIC SERVANT · ~Q j_........ ADA: MCWILLPR ~ DA-N umber: 06-0820

NO. 59,822

TilE STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE 264 TH JUDICIAL

VS. § DISTRICT COURT OF ARCHIE TERRELL SCAIFE § BELL COUNTY, TEXAS

·DISMISSAL

NOW COMES Henry Garza, District Attorney, in the above entitled and numbered cause, after

indictment of said cause and as grounds therefore would show the following:

D Insufficient evidence to obtain and secure a conviction D Restitution made in full D Unable to locate prosecuting witness ~ Defendant pled guilty in companion case D Request of prosecuting victim 0 Lack of cooperation by victim 0 Insufficient investigation by authorities charged with that responsibility 0 Defendant deceased D Other

HENRY L. GARZA District Attorney (

a,,:rFIL ED ~a . m . _p.m . o'clock BY:

~ Paul R. McWilliams ASSIST ANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY

' ··~, d ' . ...... 1

IIIIIIIIJIII~ 111111 12

•...,

.

f

.

•. ,.

.... .

STATE OF TEXAS •

• ORDER • COUNTY OF BELL •

On this the / ~ day ofMay, A. D., 2008, the foregoing motion ofthe State having been

considered and approved, the above styled and numbered cai.tse is hereby DISMISSED.

0 >-

,_ ;::,

M

0

w Q

-

t"r"l

-J

>-

IJ... .....;:

:::;_.;;: <:X:) <::::> <= ""' co

.... ./

1

· ..::..

.t .',