Florida Adjudication withheld and moving to Tx

[Specialist3]

This is probably a tired post but I can't seem to get any answers from the State.

Back in 2004 I ended up catching a Grand Theft charge (F3, which is the lowest felony for Florida) which the Adjudication was withheld after probation and then I got bored and sealed the record.
I currently posses my Concealed Carry License here in Florida and I know I can carry with it there but I imagine I'd have to change my DL eventually.

I'm still a little confused on the way Texas classes their charges and such but I believe Adjudication = Deferred in Texas but still says I may not be able to get a CHL?

I also assume I'll have to do the grunt work with fingerprints and paperwork again were I able to obtain one.

Thanks for any info you guys may have for me.
I have called and emailed the State but seems futile..

[MONGOOSE]

Tx accepts Fl. CHLs. Why change?

[RoyGBiv]

Texas views deferred adjudication as a conviction and can be permanently disqualifying for CHL purposes if the offense falls under one of the categories listed in GC 411.1711 (see below). You can read the code or give us some more information about the charges and we can try to help further clarify.

If the deferred offense was for acts against any person or habitation, you are almost certainly permanently ineligible in TX.
"Grand Theft" is not enough information to reach a clear conclusion.

What did TX DPS tell you when you contacted them?

Assuming FL "adjudication withheld" = Not convicted according to FL law, you obviously can keep your FL license and change it to a non-resident. The main concern is school zones. A TX CHL gets you an exemption while in TX, a FL license only gets you that exemption in FL.

GC § 411.1711. CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS FROM CONVICTIONS. A person is
not convicted, as that term is defined by Section 411.171, if an order of deferred
adjudication was entered against the person on a date not less than 10 years
preceding the date of the person’s application for a license under this subchapter
unless the order of deferred adjudication was entered against the person for:
(1) a felony offense under:
(A) Title 5, Penal Code;
(B) Chapter 29, Penal Code;
(C) Section 25.07 or 25.072, Penal Code; or
(D) Section 30.02, Penal Code, if the offense is punishable under
Subsection (c)(2) or (d) of that section; or
(2) an offense under the laws of another state if the offense contains elements
that are substantially similar to the elements of an offense listed in Subdivision
(1).

[ScottDLS]

Texas views deferred adjudication as a conviction and can be permanently disqualifying for CHL purposes if the offense falls under one of the categories listed in GC 411.1711 (see below). You can read the code or give us some more information about the charges and we can try to help further clarify.

If the deferred offense was for acts against any person or habitation, you are almost certainly permanently ineligible in TX.
"Grand Theft" is not enough information to reach a clear conclusion.

What did TX DPS tell you when you contacted them?

Assuming FL "adjudication withheld" = Not convicted according to FL law, you obviously can keep your FL license and change it to a non-resident. The main concern is school zones. A TX CHL gets you an exemption while in TX, a FL license only gets you that exemption in FL.

GC § 411.1711. CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS FROM CONVICTIONS. A person is
not convicted, as that term is defined by Section 411.171, if an order of deferred
adjudication was entered against the person on a date not less than 10 years
preceding the date of the person’s application for a license under this subchapter
unless the order of deferred adjudication was entered against the person for:
(1) a felony offense under:
(A) Title 5, Penal Code;
(B) Chapter 29, Penal Code;
(C) Section 25.07 or 25.072, Penal Code; or
(D) Section 30.02, Penal Code, if the offense is punishable under
Subsection (c)(2) or (d) of that section; or
(2) an offense under the laws of another state if the offense contains elements
that are substantially similar to the elements of an offense listed in Subdivision
(1).

Think the OP said he had the "conviction"/adjudication expunged. If so should be OK, even if it falls in the above exceptions.

The term does not include an adjudication of guilt or
an order of deferred adjudication that has been subsequently:
(A) expunged;
(B) pardoned under the authority of a state or federal official; or
(C) otherwise vacated, set aside, annulled, invalidated, voided, or sealed
under any state or federal law.

[RoyGBiv]

Think the OP said he had the "conviction"/adjudication expunged. If so should be OK, even if it falls in the above exceptions.

OP said "sealed". Sealed is not expunged.

I believe he would be required to list it on his TX CHL application and if it is disqualifying it would still be disqualifying.

Again.. I'm not a lawyer. This is just my opinion.

[ScottDLS]

Think the OP said he had the "conviction"/adjudication expunged. If so should be OK, even if it falls in the above exceptions.

OP said "sealed". Sealed is not expunged.

I believe he would be required to list it on his TX CHL application and if it is disqualifying it would still be disqualifying.

Again.. I'm not a lawyer. This is just my opinion.

It says "sealed" also in my quote of the law above. I think he's clear.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Whether or not you are eligible will be determined by these facts:

• 1. Do you have a true conviction or a successfully completed deferred adjudication?
  2. Was your deferred adjudication for a disqualifying felony?
  3. How long has it been since you plea bargained the deferral?
  3. Was your record truly sealed?

A successfully completed deferred adjudication, along with a true conviction, is considered a "conviction" for CHL eligibility purposes, unless it falls within certain exceptions. One exception is that the records were sealed. Based upon your information, it sounds like you had a deferred adjudication agreement, but you say you "got bored." If that means you did not meet the terms of your probation, then the deferral may have been set aside and a conviction may have been entered. If so, then you have a felony conviction and will not be eligible for a Texas CHL, unless one of the other exceptions apply. (I don't think Florida would have issued a license if you had a true conviction.)

The controlling statutes are set out below.

Chas.

(4) "Convicted" means an adjudication of guilt or, except as provided in Section 411.1711, an order of deferred adjudication entered against a person by a court of competent jurisdiction whether or not the imposition of the sentence is subsequently probated and the person is discharged from community supervision. The term does not include an adjudication of guilt or an order of deferred adjudication that has been subsequently:

• (A) expunged;
  
  (B) pardoned under the authority of a state or federal official; or
  
  (C) otherwise vacated, set aside, annulled, invalidated, voided, or sealed under any state or federal law.

(4-a) "Federal judge" means:

• • (A) a judge of a United States court of appeals;
    
    (B) a judge of a United States district court;
    
    (C) a judge of a United States bankruptcy court; or
    
    (D) a magistrate judge of a United States district court.
  (4-b) "State judge" means:
  
  • (A) the judge of an appellate court, a district court, or a county court at law of this state;
    
    (B) an associate judge appointed under Chapter 201, Family Code; or
    
    (C) a justice of the peace.

CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS FROM CONVICTIONS. A person is not convicted, as that term is defined by Section 411.171, if an order of deferred adjudication was entered against the person on a date not less than 10 years preceding the date of the person's application for a license under this subchapter unless the order of deferred adjudication was entered against the person for:

(1) a felony offense under:

• (A) Title 5, Penal Code - Offenses against the person;
  
  (B) Chapter 29, Penal Code - Robbery;
  
  (C) Section 25.07 or 25.072, Penal Code - Violation of certain protective orders; or
  
  (D) Section 30.02, Penal Code, if the offense is punishable under Subsection (c)(2) or (d) of that section - burglary of a habitation; or

(2) an offense under the laws of another state if the offense contains elements that are substantially similar to the elements of an offense listed in Subdivision (1).

[Specialist3]

Thanks for the responses.

I was never given an answer when I called. I kept getting transferred and the call kept getting dropped. I emailed them after several attempts but still have never gotten a response.
According to Florida Law I'm not convicted of any crime unless I try to become law enforcement, then FDLE considers it a conviction.

The record is truly sealed and I was arrested in 2004.

From what ya'll have posted, it appears I'd be eligible.
If I can just keep my FL license I will, but I also keep venomous reptiles so Ill have to get permits for that as well and unsure If I can keep my FL DL.

[Javier730]

Tx accepts Fl. CHLs. Why change?

To comply with federal law when driving within 1000 feet of a school might be one reason.

[cb1000rider]

To comply with federal law when driving within 1000 feet of a school might be one reason.

It requires in-state licensing? So when I drive through a school zone in Oklahoma, I'm breaking the law?

I've never really understood the whole expungement / sealed thing. Someone needs to explain it to me. Reading through Texas law, it seems to exist for the purpose of covering up an arrest without a conviction, a conviction that was successfully appealed, an conviction associated with someone that provided false ID, etc.. It doesn't appear to be allowed when you're actually guilty. Kinda interesting to have an expensive judicial process to cover up a record of something you weren't actually guilty of....

I assume other states allow it for certain conditions after a guilty verdict. Ok. You pay for that and go through it, but Texas law says never-mind, you've still got to disclose.

Practically, I don't see how true expungement is possible. Criminal data is fragmented, not controlled centrally. You could wipe it out of the records of a single jurisdiction, but it'd still show up with private background checks... You'd never be able to get all of it.

[o b juan]

Linda Tripp had an expungement on a shoplifing charge while a teen.. But the CLINTON FOLKS ANNOUNCED IT TO MAKE HER LOOK LIKE A CRIMINAL. If I remember correctly but that was in 98'

[Javier730]

To comply with federal law when driving within 1000 feet of a school might be one reason.

It requires in-state licensing? So when I drive through a school zone in Oklahoma, I'm breaking the law?

Yes it does require in state licensing and yes you will break the law if you drive through a school zone in Oklahoma with a loaded pistol without a license to carry in that state.

18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A) states:

It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(3)(A) states:

Except as provided in subparagraph (B), it shall be unlawful for any person, knowingly or with reckless disregard for the safety of another, to discharge or attempt to discharge a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the person knows is a school zone.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(B):

[18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A)] does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

(i) on private property not part of school grounds;

(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

(iii) that is—

(I) not loaded; and

(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;

(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;

(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;

(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or

(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(3)(B):

[18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(3)(A)] does not apply to the discharge of a firearm—

(i) on private property not part of school grounds;

(ii) as part of a program approved by a school in the school zone, by an individual who is participating in the program;

(iii) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in a school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual; or

(iv) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(25):

The term "school zone" means—

(A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or

(B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(26) the term "school" means a school which provides elementary or secondary education, as determined under State law.

18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(4) establishes the penalty for violating GFSZA:

Whoever violates the Act shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the term of imprisonment imposed under this paragraph shall not run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed under any other provision of law.

A conviction under the GFSZA will cause an individual to become a "prohibited person" under the Gun Control Act of 1968. This will bar them from legally owning firearms for the rest of their life.

[ScottDLS]

To comply with federal law when driving within 1000 feet of a school might be one reason.

It requires in-state licensing? So when I drive through a school zone in Oklahoma, I'm breaking the law?

I've never really understood the whole expungement / sealed thing. Someone needs to explain it to me. Reading through Texas law, it seems to exist for the purpose of covering up an arrest without a conviction, a conviction that was successfully appealed, an conviction associated with someone that provided false ID, etc.. It doesn't appear to be allowed when you're actually guilty. Kinda interesting to have an expensive judicial process to cover up a record of something you weren't actually guilty of....

I assume other states allow it for certain conditions after a guilty verdict. Ok. You pay for that and go through it, but Texas law says never-mind, you've still got to disclose.

Practically, I don't see how true expungement is possible. Criminal data is fragmented, not controlled centrally. You could wipe it out of the records of a single jurisdiction, but it'd still show up with private background checks... You'd never be able to get all of it.

Yep, you're breaking the law in OK, at least according to ATF. Felony too.

Also breaking the (federal) law in Texas if you drive with an accessible rifle through a school zone.

Also, everyone in VT except cops breaking the (federal) law driving through school zone with a gun.

As for sealed or expunged...the way I read it is if the jurisdiction that you were charged in (FL in OP case) says it's sealed, then it's sealed. Texas law says conviction "set aside, sealed, expunged, pardoned"...by the jurisdiction where the crime was alleged. Some states declare that when a record is sealed or expunged that it should be removed from FBI NCIC, and is illegal for the local authorities to disclose to anyone public or private. Technically Texas says you have to disclose, and the other state says it's illegal for you to do so, or at least legal for you to say it didn't happen.

If it's out of state and it's not in NCIC, then Texas is unlikely to find out about it. DPS doesn't run private background checks...they check FBI/NCIC, Texas records. But you're supposed to disclose.

[Javier730]

I've never really understood the whole expungement / sealed thing. Someone needs to explain it to me. Reading through Texas law, it seems to exist for the purpose of covering up an arrest without a conviction, a conviction that was successfully appealed, an conviction associated with someone that provided false ID, etc.. It doesn't appear to be allowed when you're actually guilty. Kinda interesting to have an expensive judicial process to cover up a record of something you weren't actually guilty of....

I assume other states allow it for certain conditions after a guilty verdict. Ok. You pay for that and go through it, but Texas law says never-mind, you've still got to disclose.

Practically, I don't see how true expungement is possible. Criminal data is fragmented, not controlled centrally. You could wipe it out of the records of a single jurisdiction, but it'd still show up with private background checks... You'd never be able to get all of it.

You can look up the highlighted part to read the actual law as its written.

Texas Government Code Section 411.081
You can seal your record by getting an order of non disclosure after completing deferred adjudication. It prohibits criminal justice agencies from releasing the information you have sealed. The fbi, arresting agency and jail you were in will have record still. So will the district attorney, district clerk and county clerk you were arrested in. The information can be used in later prosecutions. If you get your record sealed, a good background check will show you were arrested but it will not show a conviction or the offense committed.

Chapter 55 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure
An expungement will have any record of you being arrested destroyed if you were not charged, if it was dismissed, or if you were acquitted. Class C misdemeanors can also be expunged. Anything expunged can not be used against you in later prosecutions.

[cb1000rider]

Thanks, Javier730, I didn't remember that caveat on the federal law.