case was submitted, we issued our opinion in S.J., holding that “for a petitioner to be entitled to expunction under article 55.01, all charges arising from the arrest must meet that article’s requirements.” 438 S.W.3d at 845. In S.J., the petitioner was arrested for a single offense — aggravated assault — but pleaded nolo contendere to terroristic threat in exchange for dismissal of the aggravated assault charge. Id. at 839. Although the case did not involve a multi-charge arrest like we have in this case, we find our holding in S.J. equally applicable here. Our sister courts have also reached the same conclusion as we did in S.J. in multi-charge arrest situations. See In re D.W.H., No. 08-12-00031-CV, — S.W.3d -,-, 2014 WL 5798204, at *3 (Tex. App.-El Paso Oct. 22, 2014, no pet. h.) (<HOLDING>); Dicken, 415 S.W.3d at 480 (holding that
holding a limitation on damages arising out of bodily injury to one person involved in an accident applies to all claims arising from the death of that person holding that nature of alleged bias must be personal and not arising out of litigation holding that expunction unavailable for individual charge arising out of arrest for improper relationship between an educator and student when petitioner convicted of possessing illegal firearms arising out of the same transaction holding that all claims arising from the same employment relationship constitute the same transaction or series of transactions for claim preclusion purposes holding that an arising out of exclusion applies to claims flowing from or growing out of the excluded activity