enjoys the ‘slate cleaning’ benefit of disposing of the additional charges without formal prosecution”). Courts analyzing the availability of an ex-punction in the latter situation have unanimously held that an expunction is unavailable for the dismissed charges. See G.B.E., — S.W.3d at-,-, 2014 WL 1165854, at *1, *5-6; see also Ex parte M.G., No. 10-13-00021-CV, 2013 WL 3972225, at *2 (Tex.App.-Waco Aug. 1, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding that the petitioner failed to prove entitlement to expunction under current article 55.01 when he pleaded guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for dismissal); In re J.O., 353 S.W.3d 291, 294 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2011, no pet.) (concluding same under former article 55.01); Rodriguez v. State, 224 S.W.Sd 783, 785 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2007, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Aytonk, 5 S.W.3d
holding that the trial court had inherent power to grant or deny acceptance of a deferred acceptance of nolo contendere plea holding that evidence of conviction and sentence for manslaughter based on plea of nolo contendere following order for new trial on firstdegree murder charge was admissible to counter claim for incarcerationbased damages by showing that plaintiff was incarcerated for something other than the murder conviction holding that under former article 5501 the petitioner was not entitled to an expunction for a theft charge dismissed pursuant to a plea bargain by which she pleaded nolo contendere to issuance of bad check holding that plea of guilty or nolo contendere is not rendered involuntary because it is a product of plea bargaining an accepted plea bargain must be recorded and court may accept a bargained plea to a lesser offense reasonably related to a charged offense holding that rule 11 does not require court to ensure that defendant understands consequences of nolo contendere plea on parole eligibility in sexual assault case