In re Juan A. CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. J234158
- Trial judge
- Aaron H. Katz
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- delinquency
- Panel
- Judith L. Haller (author), Alex C. McDonald, Joan K. Irion
Analysis
The juvenile court sealed records for a later-filed petition after finding the minor satisfactorily completed probation for those specific offenses, but declined to seal records for a prior petition where the minor had previously violated probation. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the statute did not authorize sealing the prior petition's records based solely on the completion of probation for the later petition.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Juvenile court's refusal to seal records for the prior petition (G5057) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 786.“Section 786 does not authorize a juvenile court to seal the records of a prior petition based merely on a minor's satisfactorily completing probation for offenses alleged in a later-filed petition.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The appellate court correctly applied the plain language of the statute, which requires a finding of satisfactory completion of probation for the specific offense alleged in the petition to be sealed. The record showed the minor violated probation on the prior offense, and the trial court's findings were limited to the later petition. The court properly relied on the statutory text and the contemporaneous unpublished opinion in In re Y.A. to reject the argument that completion of probation on a later petition automatically triggers sealing of prior petitions. |
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly interprets the unambiguous statutory language of Section 786, which ties the sealing remedy to the specific petition and probation completion. The court appropriately distinguishes the prior petition, where probation was violated, from the later petition, where probation was completed, and relies on the contemporaneous unpublished authority In re Y.A. to support this textual interpretation.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe juvenile court, after finding Juan A. satisfactorily completed probation on his later-filed petition (G6680), dismissed that petition and sealed its records under Welfare and Institutions Code section 786, but did not seal the records of his earlier vandalism petition (G5057). The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the 2015 version of section 786 authorized sealing only of the petition on which probation was satisfactorily completed and that the record showed no finding of satisfactory completion as to the prior petition.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Refusal to seal records of the prior petition (G5057) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 786 when sealing the later-filed petition (G6680)“Section 786 does not authorize a juvenile court to seal the records of a prior petition based merely on a minor's satisfactorily completing probation for offenses alleged in a later-filed petition.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court read the then-operative text of section 786, which tied sealing to satisfactory completion of probation for an offense alleged in 'the petition,' and relied on its own published decision in In re Y.A. for the point that the statute made no reference to prior petitions. It also found factual support: the probation officer sought sealing only for G6680, the judge's comments referenced the Penal Code section 148 count from G6680, and the minor had violated probation on the prior petition and committed new, more serious offenses while on that probation. The reasoning is consistent with the statutory text and the cited authority, though the opinion never states a standard of review and brushes aside the 2016 amendment in a footnote without retroactivity analysis. |
Authorities
- relied: In re Y.A. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 523 — Under the version of section 786 effective in 2015, sealing is tied to satisfactory completion of probation on the petition at issue; the statute contains no reference to a prior petition and does not authorize sealing prior petitions on that basis.
- missed: In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740 — An ameliorative change in the law presumptively applies to all cases not yet final on appeal absent a contrary indication of legislative intent; the court declined in a footnote to address the January 1, 2016 amendment to section 786 without considering whether it applied to this nonfinal case.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result follows from the plain text of the 2015 version of section 786 and the court's recent published decision in In re Y.A., and the factual findings about the scope of the sealing order are supported by the record quoted. The opinion skips a potentially dispositive issue by disposing of the amended version of section 786 in a footnote without addressing whether the ameliorative amendment applied to a case still pending on appeal.
Opinion
Filed 4/29/16 In re Juan A. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re JUAN A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D069133 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J234158)
v. JUAN A., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Aaron H.
Katz, Judge. Affirmed.
John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina, and Annie Featherman Fraser, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2013 and 2014, the district attorney filed two petitions against Juan A. (Minor)
for unrelated incidents. For each petition, the juvenile court declared Minor a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 6021 and placed him on probation. In 2015, the court found that Minor satisfactorily completed his terms of probation for the offenses alleged in the later-filed petition and sealed the records relating to that petition.
The court did not seal the records relating to his prior petition. Minor contends the court erred by not sealing the records pertaining to his prior petition under section 7862 because the court's findings regarding probation also related to his prior petition. We conclude the court did not err and affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. Petition No. 1: G5057 In September 2013, the district attorney filed petition G5057 against Minor.
Thereafter, the juvenile court declared his wardship after he admitted to vandalizing his mother's home in violation of Penal Code section 594, subdivisions (a), (b)(2)(A). The court placed Minor with his mother subject to supervision by a probation officer, and ordered him to obey all federal, state, county, and city laws. The probation officer reported that Minor violated the terms of his probation between February and May 2014 by possessing alcohol and using drugs.
1 Subsequent unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2 Subsequent unspecified references to section 786 are to the version effective January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2015. (Stats. 2014, ch. 249, § 2, p. 2506.)
2 2. Petition No. 2: G6680 In late May 2014, the district attorney filed a new petition (G6680) against Minor, relating to an incident where he stole liquor from a market and tried to run away from the officers pursuing him. He admitted two offenses alleged in the new petition: burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and resisting arrest (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)). The juvenile court continued Minor's wardship, ordered him to participate in drug court, and placed him on probation.
In August 2015, Minor's probation officer requested the records for G6680 be sealed, noting his satisfactory compliance with probation terms. Following a hearing, the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction, found Minor had satisfactorily completed the terms and conditions of probation, dismissed petition G6680, ordered that "the arrest upon which G6680 is based is deemed never to have occurred[,]" and sealed all records relating to his current petition. The court commented as follows: "I am going to dismiss and seal all the petitions that are before the [c]ourt over — and certainly as to the [Penal Code, section] 148, over the vigorous objection of the People, I am going to dismiss the [Penal Code, section] 148 as well and seal pursuant to [Welfare and Institutions Code, section] 786."
Minor timely appealed on the ground that records pertaining to his prior petition (G5057) should have also been sealed.
DISCUSSION
Minor contends the juvenile court erred by not sealing the records relating to his prior petition under section 786. He argues that he satisfactorily completed probation on 3 the vandalism offense alleged in his prior petition and that the trial court's finding of him satisfactorily completing probation on the offenses charged in his later-filed petition (burglary and resisting arrest) also encompassed his prior offense. He further argues that section 786 requires the sealing of records related to both of his petitions.
When the sealing order was issued, the unambiguous language of section 786 required the court to seal records pertaining to a petition based upon first finding that the minor satisfactorily completed probation for an offense alleged in the petition. (§ 786; In re Y.A. (Apr. 14, 2016, D068405) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2016 Cal.App. Lexis 282, p. *5].)
Section 786 does not authorize a juvenile court to seal the records of a prior petition based merely on a minor's satisfactorily completing probation for offenses alleged in a later-filed petition. (In re Y.A., at p. *5 ["Nowhere in the statute is there any reference to a prior petition."].)
Based on our review of the record, the court made no explicit or implicit finding that Minor satisfactorily completed probation for the offense alleged in his prior petition.
Minor's probation officer recommended dismissal and sealing for only the later-filed petition, G6680. The trial court's comments reflect its intention to seal the records pertaining to Minor's resisting arrest offense (Pen. Code, § 148), which was alleged in the later-filed petition in addition to burglary. Moreover, the record shows that Minor violated the terms of probation for his prior vandalism offense and that while he was on probation for that offense, Minor committed new and more serious offenses.
Accordingly, the court's findings regarding satisfactorily completed probation related 4 only to the offenses alleged in the later-filed petition. The court properly limited its sealing order to those records.3
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HALLER, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
McDONALD, J.
IRION, J.
3 We need not address Minor's arguments regarding the amended version of section 786, which did not go into effect until after his case terminated. 5