Anyone have any forms responding to expunction requests?

You need the book Expunctions & Nondisclosures from TDCAA.

I'll shoot you an email with some form.

Gordon-

I emailed a couple forms.

Dan

Thanks for the forms.

Andrea, I'll order the book in the AM.

If someone expunged a deferred which I know can't be done legally are the time limits on attacking the expungment?

If you appeared at the hearing, then you can appeal as a normal civil case. If you did not appear, then you can appeal through a writ of error within six months of the judgment.

Since this is same as a civil case I assume once a request for expunction has been denied can the petitioner keep filing for expunction adding new evidence and new claims each time? Isn't the issue expunction, and no matter what new claims are made, the issue cannot be raised again? Shouldn't the State's answer allege res judicata? Can we prevent new expunction filings, or do we just keep answering with res judicata along with the ineligible reason?

You can raise res judicata in some circumstances, but there's not a very good track record in it. Most recently, El Paso held that when a petition is denied because the statute of limitations hasn't yet run, that's an incurable defect in subject matter jurisdiction, so there was no justiciable controversy and res judicata doesn't apply. In re A.R., no. 08-07-00123-CV, 2008 WL 3990808 (El Paso, Aug. 28, 2008).

San Antonio has also held that violation of mandatory procedures (such as notice to respondents) requires an expunction be set aside but does not prevent the petitioner from refiling. DPS v. Flores, no. 04-07-00257-CV, 2008 WL 372473 (San Antonio, Feb. 13, 2008).

Generally speaking, if the reason the expunction was denied was something like the SOL not running, then I don't oppose if they want to refile after it's run. If it's something like trying to prove the case was dismissed due to absence of probable cause, then I would probably object unless they can show new evidence AND that they couldn't have brought it in before. If it was due to some incurable reason like they were convicted, then I would object period.

Thanks, this was evidence the petitioner had but failed to provide the court. Some type of order that the court signed after it lost jurisdiction that apparently "dismissed all disabilities from the conviction." Think we can file res judicata since it is not new evidence, or any of the other reasons such as s o l.

Yeah, that sounds like RJ to me. In El Paso or San Antonio, there was a fundamental defect that in theory kept the court from ever "deciding" anything. In your case, it was fully litigated, he just decided not to include something. Good luck with it!