People v. E.B.
| Decision Date | 24 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | H046693 |
| Citation | 51 Cal.App.5th 47,264 Cal.Rptr.3d 678 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. E.B., Defendant and Appellant. |
Attorney for Defendant and Appellant: Brendan Michael Hickey
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Respondent: Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey M. Laurence, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Rene A. Chacon, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Juliet B. Haley, Deputy Attorney General
Mihara, J. Appellant E.B.1 appeals from the superior court's order denying his petition to seal his arrest records ( Pen. Code, § 851.91 ).2 He argues that the court misinterpreted section 851.91, and that based on having obtained section 1203.4 relief, he is entitled to have his arrest records sealed as a matter of right. We disagree and affirm the order.
On November 16, 1995, appellant pleaded guilty to a single count of oral copulation with a minor (former § 288a, subd. (b)(1)).3 He successfully completed his probation. In July 2011, he sought relief under section 1203.4, and the superior court permitted appellant to withdraw his guilty plea and dismissed the complaint. In January 2018, the court granted appellant a certificate of rehabilitation. The court later granted appellant's motion to reduce the offense to a misdemeanor, and appellant was removed from the sex offender registry by the California Department of Justice.
In July 2018, appellant filed a petition to seal his arrest records under section 851.91. In December 2018, the superior court denied the petition, finding that appellant's dismissal under section 1203.4 did not satisfy the requirements necessary to obtain section 851.91 relief:
The issue that appellant raises on appeal is solely one of statutory construction.
We exercise de novo review when we engage in statutory construction. ( John v. Superior Court (2016) 63 Cal.4th 91, 95-96, 201 Cal.Rptr.3d 459, 369 P.3d 238.) ( People v. Manzo (2012) 53 Cal.4th 880, 885, 138 Cal.Rptr.3d 16, 270 P.3d 711 ( Manzo ).) Generally, we first look to the language of the statute, giving the individual words "their ‘usual and ordinary meanings.’...." ( People v. Lawrence (2000) 24 Cal.4th 219, 230-231, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 570, 6 P.3d 228.) " ‘When the language of a statute is clear, we need go no further.’ " ( Manzo , at p. 885, 138 Cal.Rptr.3d 16, 270 P.3d 711.) "We do not, however, consider the statutory language ‘in isolation.’ " ( People v. Murphy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 136, 142, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 387, 19 P.3d 1129.) "We must harmonize ‘the various parts of a statutory enactment ... by considering the particular clause or section in the context of the statutory framework as a whole.’ " ( Ibid. )
Effective January 1, 2018, Senate Bill No. 393 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (the Consumer Arrest Record Equity (CARE) Act) added sections 851.91 and 851.92 to the Penal Code. Under prior law, a defendant who completed a specified diversion program or a specified deferred entry of judgment program could petition the superior court to seal his or her arrest records. (Stats. 2017, ch. 680.) The CARE Act changed the law to allow "a person who has suffered an arrest that did not result in a conviction ... to petition the court to have his or her arrest [records] sealed."4 (Stats. 2017, ch. 680.)
Section 851.91, subdivision (a) provides: "A person who has suffered an arrest that did not result in a conviction may petition the court to have his or her arrest and related records sealed" in accordance with the procedures outlined in section 851.92. The petition "may be granted as a matter of right or in the interests of justice." ( § 851.91, subd. (c).) A petitioner "is entitled to have his or her arrest sealed as a matter of right" if he or she "suffered an arrest that did not result in a conviction" subject to exceptions for domestic violence, child abuse, or elder abuse offenses. ( § 851.91, subds. (a), (c)(1) - (c)(2)(A)(i).) ( § 851.91, subd. (a)(1), (a)(1)(B)(i)-(iii).)
"Section 1203.4 provides that a defendant who ‘has fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation, or has been discharged prior to the termination of the period of probation’ ... is entitled as a matter of right to have the plea or verdict changed to not guilty, to have the proceedings expunged from the record, and to have the accusations dismissed.
[Citation.] If the petitioner establishes either of the necessary factual predicates, the trial court is required to grant the requested relief. [Citations.]" ( People v. Hawley (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 247, 249-250, 278 Cal.Rptr. 389, fn. omitted.) Section 1203.4 also provides that, "with specified exceptions, such a defendant ‘shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted.’ " ( People v. Vasquez (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1225, 1228, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 610, 25 P.3d 1090 ( Vasquez ).)
" ‘A grant of relief under section 1203.4 is intended to reward an individual who successfully completes probation by mitigating some of the consequences of his conviction and, with a few exceptions, to restore him to his former status in society to the extent the Legislature has power to do so [citations].’ " ( People v. Field (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1778, 1787, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 803 ( Field ).) However, such relief " " ( Vasquez, supra , 25 Cal.4th at p. 1230, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 610, 25 P.3d 1090.) Rather, " ‘[t]hat final judgment of conviction is a fact; and its effect cannot be nullified ... by ... the later order dismissing the action after judgment.’ " ( Ibid. ) "For example, such an expunged conviction must be disclosed in applying for public office or license and may be considered by licensing authorities." ( Field , at p. 1787, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 803.) In addition, convictions dismissed under section 1203.4 may be used to impeach a witness who is being prosecuted in a "criminal trial ... for a subsequent offense" ( Evid. Code, § 788, subd. (c) ), and may be used for purposes of suspension of a driver's license. ( Veh. Code, § 13555.) Thus, "[w]hile section 1203.4 may operate to free the convicted defendant from penalties and disabilities ‘of a criminal or like nature,’ it does not ‘obliterate the fact that [the] defendant has been "finally adjudged guilty of a crime" ’ ...." ( People v. Gross (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1320, 190 Cal.Rptr.3d 472 ( Gross ).)
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in concluding that he did not qualify for sealing of his arrest records under section 851.91. Appellant argues that section 1203.4, which permitted him to withdraw his guilty plea and have the accusatory pleading dismissed by the superior court, effectively "vacated" his conviction within the meaning of section 851.91. Thus, appellant maintains he is entitled to have his arrest records sealed.
The issue in this case concerns section 851.91's definition of "[a] person who suffered an arrest that did not result in a conviction." As relevant here, the statute provides that the definition is satisfied when "[a] conviction occurred, but has been vacated or reversed on appeal , all appellate remedies have been exhausted, and the charge may not be refiled." ( § 851.91, subd. (a)(1)(B)(iii), italics added.) Thus, the question is whether relief under section 1203.4 qualifies as a conviction that "has been vacated or reversed on appeal."
In concluding that appellant did not qualify to have his arrest records sealed, the superior court understood the statement, "has been vacated or reversed on appeal," to mean "vacated on appeal " or "reversed on appeal ...." Appellant disagrees with this construction. He contends that it is "clear that [the Legislature] was talking about two different things (vacatur on one hand, reversal on appeal on the other) not one singular event" that occurs only on appeal. The Attorney General agrees, stating that "the eligibility provisions of section 851.91" should not be "limited to convictions that are vacated on appeal."
We agree with the parties that the superior court misconstrued the eligibility requirements of section 851.91. The operative language is "vacated or reversed on appeal ...." ( § 851.91, subd. (a)(1)(B)(iii), italics added.) ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gregor
...(See, e.g., 298 Cal.Rptr.3d 243 People v. D.C. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 727, 730, fn. 1, 269 Cal.Rptr.3d 163 ; People v. E.B. (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 47, 52, fn. 1, 264 Cal.Rptr.3d 678.) Additionally, while defendant argues that he may eventually be able to request that the trial court seal his ......
-
People v. D.C.
..., and a defendant is released from some but not all disabilities resulting from the conviction"]; see also People v. E.B. (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 47, 57, 264 Cal.Rptr.3d 678, petn. for review pending, petn. filed Aug. 3, 2020 [holding trial court's acts of setting aside conviction and orderin......
- People v. Gregor
-
People v. Wohn
...SLOUGH J.We concur:RAMIREZ P. J.MILLER J. 1. Wohn also argues we must reverse because the trial court erroneously relied on People v. E.B. (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 47. However, we affirm a trial court ruling that is "correct upon any theory of law applicable to the case . . . regardless of the......
-
Table of Cases null
...3-B, §2.2.2(2).1 People v. Eaton, 275 Cal. App. 2d 584, 80 Cal. Rptr. 192 (2d Dist. 1969)—Ch. 4-C, §2.5.2(2)(c)[1][a] People v. E.B., 51 Cal. App. 5th 47, 264 Cal. Rptr. 3d 678 (6th Dist. 2020)—Ch. 4-B, §3.5.1(1)(d)[3] People v. Edelbacher, 47 Cal. 3d 983, 254 Cal. Rptr. 586, 766 P.2d 1 (19......
-
Chapter 4 - §3. Specific types of impeachment evidence
...witness; a defendant witness can still be impeached with his expunged conviction. Evid. C. §788(c); People v. E.B. (6th Dist.2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 47, 54; Field, 31 Cal.App.4th at 1787 n.4. [4] Similar mechanism in other jurisdiction. If a witness, convicted in a jurisdiction other than Cali......