People v. C.B. (In re C.B.)
| Decision Date | 30 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | S237801, S237762 |
| Citation | 6 Cal.5th 118,425 P.3d 40,237 Cal.Rptr.3d 471 |
| Parties | IN RE C.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. The People, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. C.B., Defendant and Appellant. In re C.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. The People, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. C.H., Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
Anne Mania, Alameda, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant C.B.
Patricia Noel Cooney, Berkeley, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant C.H.
Kamala D. Harris and Xavier Becerra, Attorneys General, Gerald A. Engler Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey M. Laurence, Assistant Attorney General, Donna M. Provenzano, Aileen Bunney, Laurence K. Sullivan, Eric D. Share and Enid A. Camps, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent in No. S237801.
Kamala D. Harris and Xavier Becerra, Attorneys General, Gerald A. Engler Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey M. Laurence, Assistant Attorney General, Laurence K. Sullivan, Eric D. Share, Huy T. Luong and Enid A. Camps, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent in No. S237762.
Jackie Lacey, District Attorney (Los Angeles), Roberta Schwartz and John Pomeroy, Deputy District Attorneys, for Los Angeles County District Attorney as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent in No. S237762.
The California Department of Justice maintains a databank of DNA samples and genetic profiles collected from certain adult and juvenile offenders who have been arrested, convicted, or declared wards of the court. ( Pen. Code, §§ 295 – 300.4.)1 Juveniles declared wards based on felony conduct must submit samples, but need not do so for most misdemeanor offenses. (§ 296, subd. (a).) The Legislature has also established a procedure to seek destruction of a sample and expungement of a profile from the databank. (§ 299.)
In 2014, the passage of Proposition 47 reclassified various drug and property offenses from felonies to misdemeanors. (Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2014) text of Prop. 47, §§ 5 - 13, pp. 71-73 (Proposition 47 Voter Guide).) Appellants here are juveniles who were declared wards of the court based on conduct that was felonious when committed. They urge that because their acts are now misdemeanors, they are entitled to have their DNA samples and profiles removed from the databank. We hold that Proposition 47 does not authorize that relief, nor does equal protection compel it. The judgments of the Courts of Appeal are affirmed.
These two cases raise the identical legal issues and were consolidated for argument and decision.
In 2011, C.H. entered a department store with two friends, changed into a pair of pants in a dressing room, and left the store alone without paying for the new pants. He saw his friends fighting with a loss prevention officer and joined in, kicking the officer in the head. C.H. was arrested and admitted both theft and assault.
A juvenile wardship petition was sustained, with findings that C.H. committed felony grand theft person. (Welf. & Inst. Code, former § 602, subd. (a) ; Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c).) He was ordered to submit fingerprints and DNA samples to the California Department of Justice. ( Pen. Code, §§ 296, 296.1.)
In 2013, C.B. entered an unoccupied home and took jewelry, a wallet, cell phone, and video game system. When the homeowner unexpectedly returned, C.B. brandished a knife to attempt escape. The victim and witnesses detained C.B., who confessed when police officers arrived.
The court sustained a wardship petition based on misdemeanor residential burglary and felony grand theft person. (Welf. & Inst. Code, former § 602, subd. (a) ; Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (b), 487, subd. (c).) C.B. was also ordered to submit fingerprints and DNA samples. ( Pen. Code, §§ 296, 296.1.)
In 2015, after voters approved Proposition 47, C.B. and C.H. petitioned to have their felony violations redesignated as misdemeanors, their fines reduced, and their DNA samples and profiles expunged from the state databank. (See §§ 299, 490.2, 1170.18.) In each case, the trial courts redesignated the offense as a misdemeanor and reduced the fine. However, both motions for expungement were denied.
Two different panels of the Court of Appeal affirmed, one by a divided vote. ( In re C.B. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1112, 206 Cal.Rptr.3d 785 ; id. at p. 1128, 206 Cal.Rptr.3d 785 (dis. opn. of Pollak, Acting P. J.); In re C.H. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1139, 206 Cal.Rptr.3d 775.) In In re C.B. , the majority concluded Proposition 47 did not expand the existing grounds for expungement. Moreover, after Proposition 47's passage the Legislature had amended section 299, subdivision (f), to clarify that redesignation of a felony to a misdemeanor was not a basis for removal. ( In re C.B. , at pp. 1118-1128, 206 Cal.Rptr.3d 785.) The dissent argued that Proposition 47 required redesignated offenses to be treated as misdemeanors for all purposes, including eligibility for retention in the databank. (See § 1170.18, subd. (k).) The dissent urged that the Legislature's amendment of section 299, subdivision (f), was invalid because it contravened Proposition 47.
In re C.H. was issued the same day. There, a unanimous court interpreted the statutory scheme similarly to the In re C.B. majority. It held that Proposition 47 did not change the circumstance that C.H.’s conduct had been a felony when committed and his sample had been properly collected. Nothing in section 299 or section 1170.18 authorized expungement based on subsequent redesignation of C.H.’s offense. ( In re C.H. , supra , 2 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1145-1151, 206 Cal.Rptr.3d 775.) The court expressly disagreed with Alejandro N. v. Superior Court (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1226-1230, 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 907, which had held to the contrary. In re C.H. also rejected the argument that equal protection principles required expungement. ( In re C.H. , at pp. 1151-1152, 206 Cal.Rptr.3d 775.)
For several decades, "California law [has] required the collection of biological samples from individuals convicted of certain offenses. In 1983, the Legislature enacted legislation requiring certain sex offenders to provide blood and saliva samples before their release or discharge.
(Stats. 1983, ch. 700, § 1, pp. 2680-2681, codified at Pen. Code, former § 290.2.) In 1998, the Legislature enacted the ‘DNA and Forensic Identification Data Base and Data Bank Act of 1998,’ which required the collection of DNA samples from persons convicted of certain felony offenses, including certain sex offenses, homicide offenses, kidnapping, and felony assault or battery. (Stats. 1998, ch. 696, § 2, pp. 4571-4579; Pen. Code, former § 296, subd. (a).)" ( People v. Buza (2018) 4 Cal.5th 658, 665, 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 681, 413 P.3d 1132.) In 2004, the voters adopted Proposition 69, which amended the act to further expand the class of those obligated to submit samples. This expanded group included all juveniles adjudged wards of the court based on felony conduct. (Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 2, 2004) text of Prop. 69, § III.3, pp. 137-138 (Proposition 69 Voter Guide).)
The DNA and Forensic Identification Database and Data Bank Act of 1998 (DNA Act; § 295 et seq. ) requires submission of "buccal swab samples, right thumbprints, and a full palm print impression of each hand, and any blood specimens or other biological samples required pursuant to this chapter for law enforcement identification analysis." ( § 296, subd. (a).)
The buccal swab samples contain the offender's DNA. (See § 295, subd. (e).) Samples are submitted to the California Department of Justice's DNA Laboratory, which creates and stores a genetic profile in the databank. ( §§ 295, 295.1 ; see People v. Buza , supra , 4 Cal.5th at p. 666, 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 681, 413 P.3d 1132.)2
In 2014, Proposition 47 reclassified as misdemeanors various drug- and theft-related offenses previously treated as felonies or wobblers. ( People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 347, 355, 220 Cal.Rptr.3d 230, 397 P.3d 936.) The initiative had both prospective and retroactive aspects, reducing punishments going forward and providing relief for those who had already suffered felony convictions. To achieve its retroactive purposes, the initiative added section 1170.18, which authorized a petition for recall of sentence or reclassification of an offense. Felons currently serving a sentence based on conduct now reclassified as a misdemeanor could petition for recall of their sentences and imposition of a sentence consistent with their new misdemeanor status. ( § 1170.18, subds. (a)-(b) ; People v. Page (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1175, 1179, 225 Cal.Rptr.3d 786, 406 P.3d 319.) Those who had already completed a felony sentence could apply to have the felony redesignated as a misdemeanor. ( § 1170.18, subds. (f)-(h).) Notably, the initiative gives redesignation broad effect: "A felony conviction that is recalled and resentenced under subdivision (b) or designated as a misdemeanor under subdivision (g) shall be considered a misdemeanor for all purposes ...." ( § 1170.18, subd. (k).)3
Nothing in the text of section 1170.18 explicitly applies to juveniles. The various provisions for resentencing or redesignation speak entirely in terms of sentences and convictions, as opposed to juvenile adjudications. (See, e.g., § 1170.18, subds. (a), (b), (f), (k).) "A juvenile adjudication is not a conviction." ( People v. Robinson (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1104, 1117, fn. 14, 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 727, 224 P.3d 55 ; see Welf. & Inst. Code, § 203.) However, Alejandro N. v. Superior Court , supra , 238 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1224-1226, 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 907, concluded section 1170.18 applies equally to juveniles. The People do not contest the application to juvenile cases, and we accept the People's concession.
To continue reading
Request your trial