Ex Parte James Lyle Melton--Appeal from 85th District Court of Brazos County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 10th District Court of Appeals » 1994 » Ex Parte James Lyle Melton--Appeal from 85th District Court of Brazos County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 10-94-00033-CV

Case Date: 10/26/1994

Plaintiff: Carlene Phagan Beall

Defendant: Arthur Charles Beall, III--Appeal from 261st District Court of Travis County

Preview:Ex Parte James Lyle Melton--Appeal from 85th District
Court of Brazos County
Ex parte Melton /**/
IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-94-033-CV
EX PARTE JAMES LYLE MELTON,
Appellant
From the 85th District Court
Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court # 39-289-85
O P I N I O N
James Lyle Melton appeals from an order denying his petition for expunction of arrest records relating to an
aggravated assault charge. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 55.01 (Vernon Supp. 1994). Because he has failed to
properly preserve the complaint, we will affirm the court's ruling.
In his petition, Melton alleged that he was arrested for aggravated assault, tried before a jury, and acquitted of
aggravated assault even though he was convicted of assault by contact. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. 22.01(a)(3) (Vernon
1989). Melton argued that he was entitled to have the records of his arrest expunged because he was tried and
acquitted of the offense. After a hearing, the court denied the petition by written order.
By a single point of error, Melton complains that "The trial court committed reversible error by denying appellant's
petition for expunction of records as he was acquitted of the offense for which he was arrested." This point attacks the
trial court's ruling on the petition; in effect, Melton is complaining that the court rendered an improper judgment. "The
erroneous rendition of a final judgment is not fundamental error." Young v. Hodde, 682 S.W.2d 236, 237 (Tex. 1984).
Thus, Melton was required to take some action in the trial court as a predicate to attacking the court's judgment on
appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 52(a). Although Rule 52 contains an exception for attacks on the court's factual findings
after a bench trial, the general rule applies to attacks on the court's legal conclusions. See id. 52(d); Regan v. Lee, 879
S.W.2d 133, 136 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, n.w.h.). Thus, before Melton can complain about the court's
rendition of judgment against him, he must first direct the court's attention to the asserted error by post-judgment
objections or exceptions to the judgment or a motion for rehearing. See Winters v. Arm Refining Co., Inc., 830 S.W.2d
737, 738 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 1992, writ denied). Because he failed to do so, he cannot now complain that the
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/1209.html[8/20/2013 7:03:58 PM]

court erred in rendering its judgment. Melton's sole point is overruled. The judgment is affirmed.
BOB L. THOMAS
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Thomas,
Justice Cummings, and
Justice Vance
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed October 26, 1994
Do not publish
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/1209.html[8/20/2013 7:03:58 PM]

Download 1209.pdf