Donald Eugene Carter v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedSeptember 10, 2008
Docket04-07-00854-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Donald Eugene Carter v. State (Donald Eugene Carter v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Donald Eugene Carter v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-07-00854-CV

Donald Eugene CARTER, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From County Court at Law No. 8, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 764311 Honorable Karen Crouch, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice Catherine Stone, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 10, 2008

REVERSED AND REMANDED

This is an appeal from the trial court’s denial of appellant’s petition for nondisclosure of

criminal history filed pursuant to Texas Government Code section 411.081, which provides in

pertinent part as follows: “After notice to the state and a hearing on whether the person is entitled

to file the petition and issuance of the order is in the best interest of justice, the court shall issue an

order prohibiting criminal justice agencies from disclosing to the public criminal history record

information related to the offense giving rise to the deferred adjudication.” TEX . GOV ’T CODE ANN . 04-07-00854-CV

§ 411.081(d) (Vernon 2005). In the State’s letter brief, the State joins appellant’s request that this

cause be remanded to the trial court “with specific instructions to grant the nondisclosure.” Neither

appellant nor the State indicate whether the trial court conducted a hearing on the petition, and it

appears from the record on appeal that no such hearing was held. Also, there is no indication the

trial court made a determination that nondisclosure was not in the best interest of justice. Therefore,

it appears the trial court erred by not conducting a hearing on the issue of whether nondisclosure

served the interest of justice.

CONCLUSION

We reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this

opinion.

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Donald Eugene Carter v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donald-eugene-carter-v-state-texapp-2008.