See Pokladnik v. State, 876 S.W.2d 525 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1994, no pet.); Constructors Unlimited v. State, 717 S.W.2d 169 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, pet. refd). Appellee’s argument is misplaced because he relies on cases in which defendants were charged under § 37.10(a)(1), which requires knowingly making a false entry in, or false alteration of, a governmental record, and not under § 37.10(a)(5), which requires making, presenting, or using a governmental record with knowledge of its falsity. Although the petition for expunction was not a governmental record when Appellee prepared it, it became a governmental record once the court received it and he used it in seeking to obtain the expunction of records. See Morales v. State, 11 S.W.3d 460 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2000, pet. refd) (<HOLDING>). We conclude that the legislature’s definition
holding that this line of cases was not on point and that no error was apparent on the face of the record due to lack of reporters record from defaultjudgment hearing because the judgment reflected that it was based only on the pleadings and affidavits that were in the record holding that even if a petition containing signatures for placement on the ballot was not a governmental record when it was falsified it became a governmental record after it was accepted by the party chairperson and the candidate relied on it to maintain his position on the ballot holding that the court should make factual findings from the record evidence as if it were conducting a trial on the record holding that it is not holding that where defendant buyer was furnished the brand of flour he ordered accepted and used part of it but later refused to pay for it on the grounds that it was unfit for use the burden of proving the flours condition was on him and not on the plaintiff seller