Curtis Odinot v. State of Texas ( 2007 )

Opinion filed March 29, 2007

Opinion filed March 29, 2007

                                                                        In The

    Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                 ____________

                                                          No. 11-06-00270-CV

                                                    __________

                                       CURTIS ODINOT, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                        STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                         On Appeal from the 350th District Court

                                                          Taylor County, Texas

                                                  Trial Court Cause No. 07983-D

                                             M E M O R A N D U M     O P I N I O N

Curtis Odinot filed a pro se petition in the trial court seeking an order expunging an indicted charge of attempting to escape on July 8, 1985.  The trial court found that appellant had failed to state grounds on which relief could be granted and denied the petition.  We affirm.

On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his petition because his claims were properly stated and properly before the court, because the trial court did not wait thirty days to act on his petition, and because the trial court did not grant his request for a bench warrant and set the cause for a hearing on the merits of his petition.  The record before this court does not support appellant=s claims.

The trial court specifically stated in its order that appellant Amade material misstatements regarding the records to be expunged and the nature of the case connected with such records@ and that Athe basis for the requested expunction set out in the petition does not apply to the case number listed in the petition.@ Appellant has failed to establish that the trial court erred in entering this order or that the order is in any way unsupported or not regular on its face.  See Till v. Thomas, 10 S.W.3d 730, 733 (Tex. App.CHouston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.).  All of appellant=s contentions have been considered, and each is overruled.

 The order of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

March 29, 2007          

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.