As discussed
in another post by Darren Chaker, there are three ways for a defendant to get a
dismissal under section 1203.4: (1) where he “has fulfilled the conditions of
probation for the entire period of probation”; (2) where he “has been
discharged prior to the termination of the period of probation”; or (3) where
“a court, in its discretion and the interests of justice, determines” that he
should be granted relief under the statute. Cal. Penal Code § 1203.4(a)(West
Supp. 2008).
For
instance, a defendant who satisfies the first or second prong of the statute
(either because he “fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period
of probation” or was “discharged prior to the termination of the period of
probation”) is automatically entitled to a 1203.4 dismissal as a matter of
right. This is so even if the defendant commits another crime while on
probation or right after getting off probation. See, e.g., People v. Hawley,
278 Cal.Rptr. 389, 389-91 (Ct. App. 1991)(defendant who was arrested twice
while on probation is still entitled to a dismissal under section 1203.4 where
his probation was terminated early); People
v. Butler, 164 Cal.Rptr. 475, 477 (Ct. App. 1980)(recognizing that
“evidence of crimes committed shortly after probation ends, which would seem to
conclusively prove no rehabilitation had taken place, have no effect on the
granting of relief').
On the other
hand, a defendant who violated or did not fully fulfill the conditions of
probation is not entitled to a dismissal under section 1203.4 as a matter of
right; the granting of relief is entirely discretionary. People v. Chandler, 250 Cal.Rptr. 730, 733 n.2 (Ct. App. 1988); Butler, 164 Cal.Rptr. at 477. In effect,
such a defendant remains permanently at the superior court's unfettered
discretion; the court can deny his petition even after many conviction-free,
upstanding years following his probation violation. As indicated above, at the
heart of section 1203.4 is the intent to reward those who have shown
rehabilitation.
