SALAZAR LIED TO 107TH COURT TO EXPUNGE RECORD

By Juan Montoya
When current Brownsville Independent School District counsel Baltazar Salazar applied with the district to be its legal counsel, he never admitted he had been arrested and charged with three felony offenses of theft by check.
According to court records, on at least one – 85-CR-23 (April 26, 1984) – he was tried and convicted in a non-jury trial and sentenced to three years in the state penitentiary, probated to seven years.
And as if that wasn't bad enough, he asked the 107th District court on April 24, 2012 – a year before he applied to be the BISD counsel – to expunge his criminal record to include not only that case, but also two the two other theft by check charges, 83-CR-416 (January 15, 1983) and 85-CR-450 (April 26, 1984).
Represented by his attorney Noe Garza, Salazar swore and signed under oath that he had never been convicted because the statute of limitations had expired and that he had been released, that the charge had not resulted in a final conviction, and that there was no court-ordered community supervision (probation).
Based on that presentation, 107th District Judge Ben Euresti signed the Order of Expunction June 26, 2012.
"The court finds that the petitioner has been released, that the charge (s) have not resulted in a final conviction and is no longer pending, and that there was no court-ordered community supervision...The court further finds that the prosecution for the offense for which the defendant was arrested is no longer possible because the limitations period has expired."

Under the order, numerous law enforcement agencies, the judiciary, county clerk, district clerk, and the Texas Deparment of Public Safety were directed to remove any record of the arrests and remove them from public access.
On December 20, 2012, almost six months after Euresti agreed to the expunction agreement between Garza and the Cameron County District Attorney's Office (then under Armando Villalobos), the DPS filed an appeal with the 13th Court of Appeals challenging Euresti's expunction order on the grounds that the trial court's order was not supported by legally sufficient evidence.
At the core of the DPS challenge was the fact that they had never been given notice of the motion for expungement and that the record did not agree with Salazar's contentions, and the Court of Appeals reversed the order and negated it.
However, between the time that the 107th District Court issued the order and the time DPS appealed it, all records relating to the two arrests and the conviction were erased from court files. Computer checks indicate they have not been returned to the files accessible to the public as of today.
In its decision, the Court of Appeals noted that while Salazar claimed that he "has been released, that the charge has not resulted in a final conviction and is no longer pending, and that there was no court-ordered community supervision...."and that prosecution "is no longer possible because the limitations period has expired," the record reflected differently.
At the hearing, an assistant district attorney advised the trial court that Salazar was only given "county jail and probation" in two of the cases. Although she referred to "certified copies" of documents showing that the cases had been "set aside," Salazar presented no such evidence  to the court. Salazar's petition asserted that as to two of the offenses, he did not receive court-ordered community supervision, but he presented no evidence supporting the assertion.
As to the third offense, Salazar did not even deny that he was given community supervision. The records shows that in trial cause number 85-CR-23-A, on February 26, 1985, the trial court found Salazar guilty of theft by check and sentenced him to three years imprisonment; the trial court suspended the sentence and placed Salazar on probation for seven years. Salazar appealed the judgement and the 13th Court of Appeals confirmed the conviction in cause number 13-85-181-CR in May 1985.
After his unsuccessful attempt at expunction in 2012, the 13th Court of Appeals Court then ordered that all records and documents relating to the arrests and the felony conviction surrendered to the trial court or to Salazar be returned to the submitting agencies.
El Rrun-Rrun has tried to obtain copies of all three cases at the Cameron County District Clerks' Office and found that they had not been returned for public access or inspection. But the questions now go much further. Did Salazar, by swearing that his conviction had not resulted in him getting community supervision on a felony charge before the 107th Court comit perjury, fraud, or was it worse yet – a deliberate effort by an officer of the court to deceive the judge?
And we note that Salazar attained his license to practice law before the Texas Bar in 1994. Did he conceal his felony conviction in 1985? If not, is the State of Texas now – or then – allowing a convicted felon to practice law?
And now, as legal counsel for the BISD in charge of advising a body that is responsible for a $500 million budget – at a hefty $20,000 a month or $240,00 a year salary – can his advice be trusted?
We also note that he had requested the board majority to give him the authority to initiate efforts to remove two trustees – Catalina Presas-Garcia and Lucy Longoria – from the offices to which the public elected them. We should also note that only those two trustees voted against hiring him as BISD counsel. He was voted in by Otis Powers, and championed by Minerva Peña, Jose Chirinos and the late Enrique Escobedo. If you remember, Salazar went as far as to accuse Presas-Garcia of making sexual advances on him during an open board meeting to discredit her.
As to the court record, we are still looking for the civil case file where he filed for expunction (2012-DCL-3092A) because apparently it is lost somewhere and no one can seem to find it. We should be able to find out who Villalobos assigned to the expungement hearing and what they said from the docket.
Are the missing records yet another wrinkle in this man's bag of tricks?