The cases appear to support the proposition that if multiple offenses arise from the same episode, a conviction for one of them makes ALL of them ineligible for expunction. However, I should say that in Aytonk (which most/all of these cases seem to refer back to), defendant was charged with only ONE count of theft and pleaded guilty to a closer theft offenses?..THUS, this case does not concern two separate offenses?.
Also, in Ex parte E.E.H., S.W.2d 496 (Tex. Ct. App.–1st Dist.1993), the defendant had been charged with 3 offenses arising from a single arrest. She had sought expunction for two of those three offenses (she was not eligible for the third offense because she received deferred adjudication for it), and the trial court granted them. The appellate court held that the “statute permits expunction of less than all charges arising from a single arrest.” Id. at 498 (emphasis added). It rejected the State’s argument that all three charges were indivisible ?because the record of the arrest [was] an indivisible unit . . .? Id. Thus, the fact that she was not eligible for one of those offenses did not make her ineligible for expunction for the other two offenses.