TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY v. ANTONIO LOZA ESPINOZA--Appeal from 138th District Court of Cameron County

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NUMBER 13-08-00393-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Appellant, v. ANTONIO LOZA ESPINOZA, Appellee. On appeal from the 138th District Court of Cameron County, Texas. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices YaÃ±ez and Benavides Memorandum Opinion by Justice YaÃ±ez By one issue, appellant, the Texas Department of Public Safety ("the Department"), appeals from the trial court s order granting a petition for expunction filed by appellee, Antonio Loza Espinoza. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND Espinoza was arrested for misdemeanor driving while intoxicated on July 29, 2007.1 The charges against him were dismissed. On April 2, 2008, Espinoza filed a petition to expunge all records and files relating to his arrest. An expunction hearing was held on May 20, 2008. The State was represented by the assistant criminal district attorney; however, the Department did not appear. The trial court granted Espinoza's petition for expunction.2 This appeal ensued. III. ANALYSIS By its sole issue, the Department argues that Espinoza did not establish that the statute of limitations had expired prior to filing his petition. However, we conclude that the Department is precluded from challenging this issue on appeal. The Texas Department of Public Safety has been established by statute as an agency of this State.3 The district attorney represents the interests of a State agency that does not appear at an expunction hearing.4 The Department did not appear at the expunction hearing; therefore, its interests were represented by the district attorney.5 At the expunction hearing, the district attorney, representing the interests of the 1 See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A N N . § 49.04 (Vernon 2003). 2 In his petition, Espinoza sought expunction of the arrest under article 55.01 (a)(2) of the Texas Code of Crim inal Procedure. See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P R O C . A N N . art. 55.01 (Vernon 2006). The trial court granted his petition. As such, we regard the order's reference to section (a)(1) as a typographical error. 3 T EX . G O V T . C OD E A N N . § 411.002(a) (Vernon 2005). 4 See Tex. Dep t of Pub. Safety v. Butler, 941 S.W .2d 318, 320 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 1997, no writ); see also Ex parte Elliot, 815 S.W .2d 251, 252 (Tex. 1991) ("Texas law governing expunction of crim inal records creates a unique situation in which all persons and agencies party to an expunction share not only interwoven but identical interests."). 5 Butler, 941 S.W .2d at 320. 2 Department, expressly stated to the trial court that he was in agreement with, and did not have any opposition to the expunction order. Therefore, because the district attorney represented to the trial court that it had "no opposition" to expunction in this case, any error by the trial court in granting the expunction was clearly invited by the district attorney.6 Thus, the district attorney and the agencies it represented at the hearing cannot inconsistently contend on appeal that the trial court erred by expunging these records. The Department's sole issue is overruled. IV. CONCLUSION We affirm the judgment of the trial court. LINDA REYNA YAÃ EZ, Justice Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this the 20th day of August, 2009. 6 See Kelly v. Demoss Owners Ass'n, 71 S.W .3d 419, 424 (Tex. App. Am arillo 2002, no pet.) ("Invited error is an equitable doctrine which prohibits a party from acting in a way that m isleads a trial court into com m itting error and is well established in Texas jurisprudence."). 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.