Judge Stephanie Boyd denied a request by Anthony Rodriguez’s attorney to intervene in Shelby Rodriguez’s expunction proceeding, saying the criminal‑procedure code gives that authority to the state.

The dispute arose after a jury acquitted Shelby Rodriguez and the defense filed a motion to expunge records. Attorney Keith Rose, who said his client was involved in ongoing family‑court litigation, told the court he had not been served notice of the expunction and argued his client had a legitimate interest in retaining exhibits and reports for custody proceedings. "My client clearly has a justiciable interest in maintaining and having access to those exhibits for the civil litigation," Rose said during argument.

State counsel and defense counsel opposed Rose’s intervention. Judge Boyd reviewed the statute cited by the parties (referred to in court as "Article 55A.0.302" of the Code of Criminal Procedure) and said the law requires the state, not private parties, to establish that records and files are necessary for another criminal prosecution or a civil case such as a custody suit. "The law states that the only person who can bring up or establish that records are necessary is the state," Judge Boyd said, and denied the petition for intervention. The court confirmed the expunction order originally granted after the acquittal will stand.

Courtroom participants emphasized the practical tension between expunctions and parallel civil cases: Rose argued that the family‑law proceeding would be prejudiced without access to police interviews and investigative materials; the state replied it had no present reason to retain files and that protective mechanisms exist when the state needs records for prosecution or CPS matters.

The judge told counsel that questions about how the expunction affects evidence in the family‑court case must be litigated before that civil judge and that the criminal expunction order remains in force unless the state timely establishes a legal basis to preserve records. Judge Boyd also noted that the statute requires the state to show that retention is necessary and that individuals do not have standing in a criminal expunction proceeding to force preservation of evidence.

The court denied the intervention and confirmed the expunction order will remain in place; the parties were excused to pursue civil‑court remedies where appropriate.