Expungement in California is a right
in most cases where the person was on probation for a misdemeanor conviction.
Darren Chaker prepearation of various post-conviction petitions provide consistent information concerning Californiaexpungement. Section 1203.4, subdivision (a) states:
In any case in which a defendant 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, or in
any other case in which a court, in its discretion and the interests of
justice, determines that a defendant should be granted the relief available
under this section, the defendant shall, at any time after the termination of
the period of probation, if he or she is not then serving a sentence for any
offense, on probation for any offense, or charged with the commission of any
offense, be permitted by the court to withdraw his or her plea of guilty or
plea of nolo contendere and enter a plea of not guilty; or, if he or she has
been convicted after a plea of not guilty, the court shall set aside the
verdict of guilty; and, in either case, the court shall thereupon dismiss the
accusations or information against the defendant and except as noted below, he
or she shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities
resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted, except as
provided in Section 13555 of the Vehicle Code. (Emphasis added.)
The statutory language of section
1203.4 is plain on its face. In “any case” in which a defendant has successfully
completed his probation, and/or “in the interests of justice” when a court
believes a defendant is entitled to relief, the court shall grant the relief
requested. Therefore, contrary to the court's beliefs, it not only had the
discretion to grant appellant's petition, but according to the language of the
statute, by use of phrase “shall ...be permitted by the court to withdraw his
or her plea of guilty or plea of nolo contendere and enter a plea of not
guilty,” appellant was entitled to the relief sought by his petition.
The fundamental rule of statutory
construction is that the court should ascertain the intent of the Legislature
so as to effectuate the purpose of the law ....... In determining that intent,
we first examine the words of the statute itself.... Under the so-called “plain
meaning” rule, courts seek to give the words employed by the Legislature their
usual and ordinary meaning.... If the language of the statute is clear and
unambiguous, there is no need for construction.... (Bodell Construction Co. v. Trustees of Cal. State University (1998)
62 Cal.App.4th 1508, 1515-1516, citations and internal quote marks omitted.)
In upholding the constitutionality of
section 1203.4 against an equal protection challenge brought by a parolee, the Court said:
[W]e must examine the nature and
purpose of probation, in contrast to parole or imprisonment, as reflected in
section 1203.4 as it relates to the relief provided in that section... Section
1203.4 provides in relevant part as follows: “(a) In any case in which a
defendant 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, ... the defendant shall, at any time after the termination of the
period of probation, if he is not then serving a sentence for any offense, on
probation for any offense, or charged with the commission of any offense, be
permitted by the court to withdraw his plea of guilty or plea of nolo
contendere and enter a plea of not guilty; or, if he has been convicted after a
plea of not guilty, the court shall set aside the verdict of guilty; and, in
either case, the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information
against the defendant and except as noted below, he shall thereafter be
released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of
which he has been convicted ....” (Italics added.)
In Peoplev. Borja (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 378, 381-382, the court held that section
1203.4 applies only to those who have successfully completed probation and not
to those who have been discharged from parole.
(People
v. Jones (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 120, 127. Italics in original.)
In commenting upon the separate and
distinct statutory procedures that apply to former probationers and former parolees,
the Borja court observed:
“In granting probation, the trial
court retains jurisdiction of the defendant. During the period of his
probation, the probationer remains in the constructive custody of the court and
is bound by the terms and conditions of the court's probation order. Customarily,
such order is tailored to the rehabilitative needs of that defendant. If the
defendant accepts probation and later violates any of the conditions thereof,
the court may then revoke its order of probation and impose sentence upon the
offending probationer.
(People
v. Borja, supra, 110 Cal.App.3d at p. 383. Italics added.)
Section 1203.4, is therefore, a right
granted by the Legislature to a probationer who has successfully completed the
term of probation and has not committed any new offense. Appellant meets those
standards in this case.
