Carl Current, Jr., proceeding in forma pauperis, moved to expunge the records of his conviction for burglary of a building.
See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 55.01 (Vernon Supp. 1994). Although Current claims that the court erred in dismissing
his motion, the record reflects that the court actually denied the motion. He argues that the court abused its discretion
by ruling on the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing and that the State failed to carry a burden of demonstrating
that he was not entitled to an expunction. We will reverse. The facts are not in dispute. A jury convicted Current of the burglary offense in September 1990. This court determined that
the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, reversed the judgment, and remanded the cause to the trial court
with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal. See Current v. State, 10-90-183-CR (Tex. App.--Waco, November 27, 1991,
no pet.) (not designated for publication). Consistent with our instructions, the court signed a judgment of acquittal on February