Second Court of Appeals

Week of November 24, 2014 

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of November 24, 2014

NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.

Links to full text of opinions (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.

State v. N.R.J., No. 02-13-00082-CV (Nov. 26, 2014) (Walker, J., joined by McCoy, J.; Dauphinot, J., dissents with opinion).

Held:  Appellee was not entitled to an expunction for his possession of marijuana charge arising out of a multi-charge arrest because his DWI charge arising out of that arrest does not satisfy the expunction statute's requirements and because Appellee's admission of guilt to the possession offense and request that the trial court consider that admission as a plea in bar in determining punishment for the DWI offense bars an expunction for the admitted to, unadjudicated possession offense.

Dissent:  Appellee's arrest for possession of marijuana was distinct from his arrest for DWI even though they occurred on the same day. The possession charge had a separate case number and a separate bond number and bond amount. Appellee's arrest for possession did not result in a conviction or deferred adjudication for possession or a lesser included offense, nor did his admission of guilt in the possession case support the DWI conviction. Under the expunction statute as drafted by the legislature, Appellee is entitled to an expunction of all records related to the possession charge that do not impact the DWI.

Tarrant Reg'l Water Dist. v. Bennett, No. 02-13-00354-CV (Nov. 26, 2014) (Meier, J., joined by Gardner, J.; Dauphinot, J., dissents with opinion).

Held: Water code section 49.064 unambiguously excludes from TOMA's coverage meetings of the Board's committees at which less than a quorum is present, and TRWD's jurisdictional evidence conclusively established that less than a quorum of its Board had attended any of the claimed committee meetings of which Bennett complains. TOMA and its accompanying waiver of immunity therefore do not apply, and the trial court erred by denying TRWD's plea to the jurisdiction.

Dissent: Bennett raised a fact issue about whether TRWD conducts its business in violation of the water code and TOMA.