We have a couple of municipal courts that say they cannot do an order of nondisclosure. It is very clear, though, that only the court that puts someone on deferred can issue the order. It seems to me that the muni court can do it pursuant to Section 411.081 even if it claims it is not a court of record. Has anyone else run into this situation?

Go back one step and ask: Can municipal courts grant deferred adjudications? They can give deferred dispositions under CCP Ch. 45, but that is not the same. I think only county & district courts can give deferred adjudications under 42.12, Sec. 5. And a deferred adjudication is a condition precedent for an order on non-disclosure.

Well, that is an interesting idea. That will create a subset of people who can't get stuff cleared because there is usually a B misdemeanor associated with these--possession of marijuana and possession of paraphernalia.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: JohnR,

Bingo.

At a recent hearing, TCDLA's new lobbyist stated that they would like to see legislation authorizing the non-disclosure of other offenses arising out of the same criminal episode as a non-disclosed deferred adjudication. Not sure how that would work in practice, but it is something that apparently comes up from time to time.

It may be something to consider when pleading out these cases--a smart plea bargain could remove the dilemma.

How so? A dismissal of the class C doesn't allow a nondisclosure (even if the muni court can do one), and the related deferred prevents expunction of the same. Any plea bargaining that something is expungeable/nondisclosable is likely to blow up down the road. Best thing might be if agencies pick their best charge instead of filing a bunch of junk in addition to a good charge.