IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

═════════_= 52;══

No. 06-0974

════════λ= 2;═══

The State of Texas,=20 Petitioner

Judy Beam,=20 Respondent

════════λ= 2;══════════&= #9552;═════════_= 52;══════════= ══════════ = 552;═

On Petition for Review from = the

Court of Appeals for the Seventh = District of=20 Texas

═════════_= 52;══════════= ══════════ = 552;══════════= ;══════════&#= 9552;

Chief Justice Jefferson = delivered the=20 opinion of the Court.

On = June 20,=20 2005, Judy Beam was arrested and charged with a misdemeanor offense. = Pursuant to=20 a plea agreement, the charge was later dismissed and Beam was granted = deferred=20 adjudication on the lesser charge of disorderly conduct. Tex. Penal Code =A7 42.01(a). = On February=20 16, 2006, less than two years later, Beam filed a petition for = expunction=20 pursuant to article 55.01 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The State = contends=20 that Beam is not entitled to expunction until two years after the date = on which=20 she allegedly committed the misdemeanor offense because the State has a = two-year=20 limitations period during which it may present an indictment or=20 information. Code Crim. = Proc.=20 art. 12.02.[1] Therefore, = according to the=20 State, Beam cannot seek expunction before the two-year limitations = period has=20 expired on June 20, 2007.[2]

The = trial=20 court granted Beam=92s petition for expunction, and the State appealed. = The court=20 of appeals affirmed the trial court=92s judgment, holding that paragraph = (a)(2)(A)=20 of article 55.01 does not apply =93when the sought expunction involves a = misdemeanor offense.=94 __ S.W.3d __. We disagree and hold that the = limitations=20 requirement in article 55.01(a)(2)(A)(i) applies to both felonies and=20 misdemeanors. Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals=92 judgment = and render=20 judgment for the State.

Beam sought=20 expunction pursuant to article 55.01(a)(2) of the Code of Criminal = Procedure=20 which provides, in relevant part:

(a)=20 A person who has been placed under a custodial or noncustodial arrest = for=20 commission of either a felony or misdemeanor is entitled to have all = records and=20 files relating to the arrest expunged if:

. . .

(2)=20 each of the following conditions exist:

(A)=20 an indictment or information charging = the=20 person with commission of a felony has not been presented against the = person for=20 an offense arising out of the transaction for which the person was = arrested or,=20 if an indictment or information charging the person with commission of a = felony=20 was presented, the indictment or information has been dismissed or = quashed,=20 and:

(i)=20 the limitations period = expired=20 before the date on which a petition for expunction was filed under = Article=20 55.02.

Code Crim. Proc. art. = 55.01(a)(2)(A)(i)=20 (emphasis added).

Beam argues=20 that, because paragraph (a)(2)(A) is limited to felonies, the = limitations=20 requirement in paragraph (a)(2)(A)(i) is also so limited. The State = disagrees,=20 contending that the plain language of the statute requires the = expiration of=20 limitations for both felonies and misdemeanors before expunction may be = sought.=20 We agree with the State.

Prior to=20 2001, article 55.01(1) (current article 55.01(a)(2)(A)=92s predecessor) = applied=20 only to felonies, and there was no requirement that the limitations = period=20 expire before expunction could be sought. Act of May 29, 1989, 71st = Leg., R.S.,=20 ch. 803, =A7 1, 1989 Tex. Gen. Laws 3666, 3666 (amended 2001) (current = version at=20 Code Crim. Proc. art. = 55.01(a));=20 see Travis County Attorney v. J.S.H., 37 S.W.3d 163, 165 = n.2 (Tex.=20 App.=96Austin 2001, no pet.); Tex. Dep=92t of Pub. Safety v. = Moran, 949=20 S.W.2d 523, 526 (Tex. App.=96San Antonio 1997, no writ); Harris = County=20 Dist. Attorney=92s Office v. D.W.B., 860 S.W.2d 719, 721 n.3 (Tex.=20 App.=96Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no writ); Ex parte Scott, 818 = S.W.2d 226,=20 227 (Tex. App.=96Corpus Christi 1991, no writ); Ex parte Watts, = 742 S.W.2d=20 745, 747 (Tex. App.=96Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no writ). In 2001, = however, the=20 Legislature amended article 55.01(a) to provide that the limitations = period for=20 the underlying offense must expire before a petition for expunction may = be=20 filed: =93[T]he limitations period [must have] expired before the date = on which a=20 petition for expunction was filed under Article 55.02.=94 Act of May 27, = 2001,=20 77th Leg., R.S., ch. 1021, =A7 1, 2001 Tex. Gen. Laws 2236, 2237 = (codified at=20 Code Crim Proc. art.=20 55.01(a)(2)(A)(i)). The State asserts that the Legislature added this=20 requirement so that courts would not order expungement of all records = and files=20 relating to a person=92s arrest if that person were still subject to = prosecution=20 for a crime arising out of the transaction for which the person was = arrested.=20

After the=20 Legislature amended article 55.01(a) in 2001, however, courts of appeals = have=20 differed as to the correct interpretation of the statute. The Amarillo = and El=20 Paso courts of appeals have held that because article 55.01(a)(2)(A) = applies=20 only to felonies, article 55.01(a)(2)(A)(i)=92s limitations requirement = applies=20 only to felonies. Beam, __ S.W.3d __; In re Expunction of = K.E.L.,=20 __ S.W.3d __ (Tex. App.=96El Paso 2006, pet. filed); Ex parte = M.R.R., __=20 S.W.3d __ (Tex. App.=96Amarillo 2006, pet. filed). The Amarillo court = noted that=20 paragraph (2)(A)(i) is but a subpart of paragraph (2)(A); as such, it = =93serve[s]=20 to modify, condition or expand (2)(A),=94 which applies only to = felonies.=20 M.R.R., __ S.W.3d at __. The El Paso court held that =93by its = plain=20 reading, Subsection (2)(A) does not apply where the underlying offense = is a=20 misdemeanor=94 and thus the limitations period did not have to expire = before the=20 petitioner sought to have a misdemeanor charge expunged. K.E.L., = __=20 S.W.3d at __.

The = Dallas=20 court of appeals, on the other hand, has held that article = 55.01(a)(2)(A)(i)=92s=20 limitations requirement applies regardless of whether the expunction = relates to=20 a felony or a misdemeanor offense. Collin County Criminal Dist. = Attorney=92s=20 Office v. Winger‑Bearskin, No. 05-05-00924-CV, 2006 WL 531283, = at *1 (Tex.=20 App.=96Dallas Mar. 6, 2006, pet. denied); Collin County Criminal = Dist.=20 Attorney=92s Office v. Dobson, 167 S.W.3d 625, 627 (Tex. = App.=96Dallas 2005, no=20 pet.); Collin County Criminal Dist. Attorney=92s Office v. = Russell, No.=20 05-04-00100-CV, 2005 WL 160194, at *1 (Tex. App.=96Dallas Jan. 6, 2005, = no=20 pet.); see also State v. Bhat, 127 S.W.3d 435, 436 (Tex. = App.=96Dallas=20 2004, no pet.). That court requires a party seeking expunction to prove = that the=20 limitations period for the applicable offense=97whether misdemeanor or = felony=97has=20 expired before filing the petition. Dobson, 167 S.W.3d at 627; = Bhat, 127 S.W.3d at 436 (citing Heine v. Tex. Dep=92t of Pub. = Safety,=20 92 S.W.3d 642, 646 n.4 (Tex. App.=96Austin 2002, pet. denied)).

The = State=20 argues, and we agree, that article 55.01(a)=92s recent amendment = supports the=20 Dallas court of appeals=92 view that the limitations requirement of = article=20 55.01(a)(2)(A)(i) applies to both felonies and misdemeanors. Paragraph = (2)=20 authorizes expunction for felonies and misdemeanors only if = =93each of the=20 following conditions exist,=94 and then sets forth three conditions, = (2)(A),=20 (2)(B), and (2)(C). Code Crim. = Proc.=20 art. 55.01(a)(2) (emphasis added). Paragraph (2)(A) first = requires that=20 an indictment or information charging the person with committing a = felony must=20 not have been presented, or if presented, it must have been dismissed or = quashed. Id. art. 55.01(a)(2)(A). This condition will always be = satisfied=20 in a misdemeanor case. But (2)(A) contains an additional requirement: = the=20 limitations period must have expired before the petition was filed. = Id.=20 art. (a)(2)(A)(i). The statute uses the word =93and=94 to connect = paragraph (2)(A)=20 and (2)(A)(i), meaning that both requirements must be met before a party = is=20 entitled to expunction. Id. art. 55.01(a)(2)(A). Although parts = of (2)(A)=20 are expressly limited to felonies, (2)(A)(i) is not. Because it is not, = we=20 conclude that it applies to misdemeanors as well.[3]=20 Id. art. 55.01(a)(2)(A)(i). To the extent that some courts = of=20 appeals have held otherwise, we disapprove those decisions. In re = Expunction=20 of K.E.L., __ S.W.3d at __; Ex parte M.R.R., __ S.W.3d at = __.

Here, Beam=20 was arrested and charged with a misdemeanor offense, but the charge was=20 dismissed pursuant to a plea agreement and she was granted deferred = adjudication=20 on a lesser charge. Beam sought expunction pursuant to paragraph (a)(2). = No=20 felony indictment or information has yet been presented against Beam, = but the=20 limitations period for the underlying offense has not expired. = Therefore, Beam=20 does not satisfy the requirements for filing an expunction petition = under=20 paragraph (a)(2). See Code Crim.=20 Pro. art. 55.01(a)(2). Even though Beam was arrested for a = misdemeanor=20 offense, she must wait until the two-year limitations period expires on = June 20,=20 2007 before she may seek expunction=97assuming she meets article = 55.01=92s remaining=20 requirements, a question we do not reach. Id. art. = 55.01(a)(2)(A)(i).=20

Without=20 hearing oral argument, we reverse the court of appeals=92 judgment and = render=20 judgment for the State. Tex. = R. App.=20 P. 59.1, 60.2(c).

______________________________

Wallace B.=20 Jefferson

Chief Justice=20

OPINION=20 DELIVERED: June 1, 2007 =