In re Luis P. CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. J231834
- Trial judge
- Roderick W. Shelton
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- delinquency
- Panel
- Judith L. Haller (author), Alex C. McDonald, Joan K. Irion
Analysis
The juvenile court denied the minor's motion to seal the records of a previously dismissed 2012 petition, ruling that the relevant sealing statutes did not apply retroactively to that prior dismissal. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that neither the former nor the amended version of Welfare and Institutions Code section 786 operates retroactively to seal records of petitions dismissed before the statutes' effective dates.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of motion to seal records of previously dismissed petition G1907 under former Welfare and Institutions Code section 786“We are guided by the well-established rule that a 'statute applies prospectively only, unless the Legislature clearly expresses an intent that it operate retroactively.'” | de novo | correct | agree with court The court correctly applied the presumption of prospective application of statutes. Former section 786, effective January 1, 2015, mandated sealing upon completion of supervision for pending petitions but contained no language authorizing the sealing of records for petitions dismissed prior to its enactment. As the dismissal of petition G1907 occurred in 2013, the statute did not apply. The court properly relied on the plain language of the statute and the absence of legislative intent for retroactivity. |
Denial of motion to seal records of previously dismissed petition G1907 under amended Welfare and Institutions Code section 786 (effective Jan 1, 2016)“Estrada does not support Minor's position. Estrada teaches that '[w]hen the Legislature amends a statute so as to lessen the punishment it has obviously expressly determined that its former penalty was too severe...'” | de novo | correct | agree with court The court correctly distinguished the *Estrada* rule, which applies to statutes lessening criminal punishment, from the present case involving a non-punitive procedural statute regarding record sealing. Amended section 786, effective after the termination of jurisdiction, did not contain clear legislative intent to operate retroactively to seal prior dismissed petitions. The court properly noted that the minor retains the right to petition under section 781 for sealing, which is the appropriate mechanism for prior records. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641 — Statutes apply prospectively only unless the Legislature clearly expresses an intent for them to operate retroactively.
- relied: Evangelatos v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1188 — It is an established canon of interpretation that statutes are not to be given a retrospective operation unless it is clearly made to appear that such was the legislative intent.
- relied: Green v. State of California (2007) 42 Cal.4th 254 — The statute's plain meaning controls the court's interpretation unless its words are ambiguous.
- relied: In re Y.A. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 523 — The plain language of former section 786 did not support the proposition that it was intended to be a panacea for all sealing issues.
- relied: People v. Connor (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 669 — Courts may not interpret a statute in a way that effectively adds provisions or rewrites it to conform to an assumed intent that does not appear from its plain language.
- relied: In re G.Y. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1196 — The right to have juvenile records sealed is governed by section 781.
- relied: In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740 — When the Legislature amends a statute so as to lessen the punishment, it has obviously expressly determined that its former penalty was too severe, and the amendment applies retroactively to nonfinal cases.
- relied: People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314 — The Estrada rule applies only when a legislative act mitigates the punishment for a particular criminal offense based on the inferred legislative intent to impose a lighter penalty.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the presumption of prospective statutory application and properly distinguishes the *Estrada* rule, which is limited to mitigating criminal punishments, from the non-punitive context of juvenile record sealing. The court accurately identifies that the plain language of both versions of section 786 lacks the necessary legislative intent for retroactivity regarding previously dismissed petitions.
The juvenile court, after finding Luis P. satisfactorily completed probation on his 2014 petty theft petition and sealing those records under former Welfare and Institutions Code section 786, denied his motion to also seal the records of a 2012 drug possession petition that had been dismissed in 2013 after informal supervision. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that former section 786 did not reach a petition dismissed before its effective date and that the 2016 amendments to section 786 (including the new subdivision (e)(1) allowing sealing of prior petitions) do not apply retroactively because the statute is not punitive and the Estrada inference does not apply.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of motion to seal records of previously dismissed petition G1907 under former section 786 (version effective Jan. 1, 2015)“Applying the above principles, we conclude the juvenile court did not err because it could not apply former section 786 to seal a previously dismissed petition.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The court did not expressly state a standard of review but applied plain-meaning statutory interpretation principles (Ledesma, Evangelatos, Green), which is de novo review. Former section 786 tied sealing to the court's contemporaneous order dismissing the petition upon satisfactory completion; a petition dismissed in 2013, before the statute existed, falls outside that text, and the court properly noted section 781 remains available. Minor's counsel essentially conceded the point below. The reasoning is supported by the cited authorities and by In re Y.A. |
Refusal to apply amended section 786 (effective Jan. 1, 2016), including subdivision (e)(1) permitting sealing of prior petitions, retroactively to Minor's case“Based on its plain language, amended section 786 does not operate retroactively.” | de novo | correct | unsure The court held Estrada's retroactivity inference applies only to statutes mitigating punishment, relying on People v. Brown, and characterized section 786 as non-punitive. Brown does describe Estrada in those terms, so the reasoning is internally supported. However, the opinion does not grapple with whether the case was 'final' given the pending appeal, and treats the Estrada inference narrowly even though record sealing ameliorates consequences of a delinquency adjudication; a later published decision (In re A.V. (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 697) reached the opposite conclusion on amended section 786, though it postdates this opinion. Also, because subdivision (e)(1) is permissive ('may'), even retroactive application would only have warranted remand for exercise of discretion. The result is defensible but the analysis is debatable. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641 — A statute applies prospectively only unless the Legislature clearly expresses an intent that it operate retroactively.
- relied: Evangelatos v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1188 — Statutes are not given retrospective operation unless legislative intent to do so clearly appears.
- relied: Green v. State of California (2007) 42 Cal.4th 254 — Courts look to a statute's words and give them their ordinary meaning; unambiguous plain language controls.
- relied: In re Y.A. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 523 — The plain language of former section 786 did not make it a panacea for all juvenile record sealing issues; it did not reach prior petitions.
- relied: People v. Connor (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 669 — Courts may not rewrite a statute or add provisions to conform to an assumed legislative intent not appearing in its plain language.
- relied: In re G.Y. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1196 — The right to have juvenile records sealed is governed by section 781.
- relied: In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740 — When the Legislature lessens the punishment for an offense, the amendment is inferred to apply to all cases not yet final.
- relied: People v. Brown (2012) 54 Cal.4th 314 — The Estrada rule applies only when a legislative act mitigates the punishment for a particular criminal offense; a statute increasing conduct credits as an incentive for future good behavior operated prospectively.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly applies plain-meaning and prospectivity principles to former section 786 and reasonably reads Brown as confining Estrada to punishment-mitigating statutes, so the result is defensible on the authorities cited. It skips over whether the case was nonfinal on appeal and whether record sealing is an ameliorative change triggering the Estrada inference despite not being 'punishment', a question on which later published authority disagreed, and does not note that subdivision (e)(1) is discretionary in any event.
Opinion
Filed 8/11/16 In re Luis P. 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 LUIS P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D068999 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J231834)
v. LUIS P., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Roderick W.
Shelton, Judge. Affirmed.
Sheila O'Connor, 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, Theodore M. Cropley and Daniel J. Hilton, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2012, the district attorney filed a petition against Luis P. (Minor), which was dismissed in 2013 after he completed an informal program of supervision. In 2014, the district attorney filed a new petition against Minor for an unrelated incident. As to the new petition, the juvenile court declared him a ward under Welfare and Institutions Code section 6021 and placed him on probation. In 2015, the court found that Minor satisfactorily completed the terms of probation for his latest offense and sealed the records relating to it, but denied his request to seal the records relating to his first, previously dismissed, petition. Minor contends the court erred by not sealing the records pertaining to his prior dismissed petition under former section 786, or alternatively, the current version of section 786 should be retroactively applied.2 We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Petition No. 1: G1907 In 2012, the district attorney filed petition G1907 against Minor, alleging he unlawfully possessed a controlled substance in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a). The juvenile court ordered Minor to participate in an informal program of supervision under section 654.2. In 2013, the court found that he 1 Subsequent unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2 Subsequent unspecified references to "former section 786" are to the version effective January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2015. (Stats. 2014, ch. 249, § 2.) Amendments to the statute became effective on January 1, 2016. (Stats. 2015, ch. 368, § 1.) 2 had substantially complied with the terms of his informal program and dismissed the petition.
Petition No. 2: G7111 In July 2014, the district attorney filed a new petition, G7111, against Minor, alleging an offense of petty theft (Pen. Code, § 484). Minor admitted the offense, the court declared him a ward, and placed him on probation. In October 2015, the court found that Minor had satisfactorily completed probation, dismissed petition G7111, sealed the records relating to it, and terminated jurisdiction.
At the October review hearing, Minor also moved to seal the records of his first, previously dismissed, petition (G1907). His counsel stated that sealing the first petition was "[c]ertainly . . . not the mandatory law at this point in time" and relevant amendments to section 786 would "go into effect January of next year," but urged sealing based on the "spirit of the rule." The court denied Minor's motion to seal his first petition. He timely appealed the court's order denying his motion.
DISCUSSION
I. Former Section 786 Despite making certain concessions below, Minor still contends on appeal that his first petition should have been sealed under former section 786. The People respond that his first petition could not be sealed under former section 786 because the petition was dismissed in 2013, prior to the statute's effective date. We agree with the People.
We are guided by the well-established rule that a "statute applies prospectively only, unless the Legislature clearly expresses an intent that it operate retroactively."
3 (People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 664; see Evangelatos v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1188, 1207 [" '[it] is an established canon of interpretation that statutes are not to be given a retrospective operation unless it is clearly made to appear that such was the legislative intent' "].)
Furthermore, to ascertain the Legislature's intent, "[w]e must look to the statute's words and give them their usual and ordinary meaning. [Citation.] The statute's plain meaning controls the court's interpretation unless its words are ambiguous. If the plain language of a statute is unambiguous, no court need, or should, go beyond that pure expression of legislative intent." (Green v. State of California (2007) 42 Cal.4th 254, 260.)
Applying the above principles, we conclude the juvenile court did not err because it could not apply former section 786 to seal a previously dismissed petition. Former section 786 became effective on January 1, 2015, and provided in pertinent part:
"If the minor satisfactorily completes (a) an informal program of supervision pursuant to Section 654.2, . . . or (c) a term of probation for any offense not listed in subdivision (b) of Section 707, the court shall order the petition dismissed, and the arrest upon which the judgment was deferred shall be deemed not to have occurred. The court shall order sealed all records pertaining to that dismissed petition in the custody of the juvenile court . . . ." (Italics added.)
Former section 786 did not contain any language permitting a court to seal records pertaining to a petition dismissed prior to the statute's effective date, and instead, the plain and unambiguous language described dismissal and sealing together, prospectively.
Minor fails to identify any ambiguous or uncertain statutory language.
Contrary to Minor's position, the Legislature has not expressed an intent for the 4 automatic sealing provisions of former section 786 to apply to previously dismissed petitions. (See In re Y.A. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 523, 527 (Y.A.) ["[T]he plain language of former section 786 did not support the proposition that it was intended to be a panacea for all sealing issues."].) Courts may not interpret a statute in a way that effectively adds provisions or rewrites it to conform to an assumed intent that does not appear from its plain language. (People v. Connor (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 669, 692.) Before and after the enactment of former section 786, section 781 has provided a method for individuals to petition the court to seal their juvenile records. (See In re G.Y. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1196, 1200 ["The right to have juvenile records sealed is governed by section 781."];
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.830.) The juvenile court did not misconstrue the scope of former section 786.
II. Amended Section 786 Turning to Minor's primary argument on appeal, he contends the records relating to his first petition should be sealed under the current version of section 786, which became effective on January 1, 2016, after the court terminated jurisdiction over him. He relies on In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740 (Estrada), to support the contention that amended section 786 may be retroactively applied and argues Y.A., supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at page 527, is distinguishable because the minor in Y.A. did not successfully complete probation for her first petition while he successfully completed an informal program of supervision.
Based on its plain language, amended section 786 does not operate retroactively.
The amended statute contains a similar requirement as its former version for sealing 5 records pertaining to a pending petition if the minor satisfactorily completes probation.3 However, the Legislature added a number of new subdivisions, including subdivision (e)(1), which states in part, "[t]he court may, in making its order to seal the record and dismiss the instant petition pursuant to this section, include an order to seal a record relating to, or to dismiss, any prior petition or petitions that have been filed or sustained . . . ." (§ 786, subd. (e)(1).) There is no legislative indication in the language of amended section 786 that it should be applied in lieu of the relevant law in effect at the time of the court's sealing order, former section 786.
Estrada does not support Minor's position. Estrada teaches that "[w]hen the Legislature amends a statute so as to lessen the punishment it has obviously expressly determined that its former penalty was too severe and that a lighter punishment is proper as punishment for the commission of the prohibited act. . . . This intent seems obvious, because to hold otherwise would be to conclude that the Legislature was motivated by a desire for vengeance, a conclusion not permitted in view of modern theories of penology." (Estrada, supra, 63 Cal.2d at p. 745, italics added; People v. Brown (2012)
54 Cal.4th 314, 324-325 (Brown) [affirming the Estrada rule applies only when a legislative act "mitigate[s] the punishment for a particular criminal offense" based on the inferred legislative intent to impose a lighter penalty].)
Amended section 786 does not impose a punishment or penalty for any offense; it 3 Amended section 786 provides in pertinent part: "If the minor satisfactorily completes . . . a term of probation for any offense, the court shall order the petition dismissed. The court shall order sealed all records pertaining to that dismissed petition in the custody of the juvenile court . . . ." (§ 786, subd. (a).) 6 addresses circumstances requiring and permitting a court to seal juvenile records. The statute is not punitive in nature, and accordingly, does not lend itself to the inference discussed in Estrada of legislative intent to impose a reduced penalty to nonfinal cases.
(See § 202, subd. (e) [listing punishments for delinquent minors].) Amended section 786 operates prospectively, providing an incentive for minors to satisfactorily complete probation for offenses alleged in pending (i.e., "instant") petitions. (§ 786, subd. (e)(1).)
Furthermore, although Minor accurately relates a factual distinction between his case and the minor in Y.A., supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at page 527—a successful versus unsuccessful completion of supervision/probation—the distinction is of no significance to our legal analysis regarding retroactivity. As we have discussed, the Legislature has not indicated that amended section 786 was intended to operate retroactively in lieu of former section 786. (Cf. Brown, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 325 [statute that increased rate at which prisoners earned credit for good behavior was not intended to operate retroactively and it provided increased incentives for future good behavior].)
In summary, the court properly limited its sealing order to the records of Minor's last petition under former section 786, and amended section 786 does not operate retroactively. Minor retains the ability to petition the court to seal his remaining juvenile records under section 781. (§ 781; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.830.)
7 DISPOSITION
The order denying Minor's motion to seal petition number G1907 is affirmed.
HALLER, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
McDONALD, J.
IRION, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Y.A. D068405 · 2016-04-14
- People v. G.Y. H040722 · 2015-03-03
- People v. Brown S181963 · 2012-06-18
- Green v. State S137770 · 2007-08-23
- People v. Ledesma S014394 · 2006-08-17
- People v. Connor H024743 · 2004-02-06
- Evangelatos v. Superior Court S000194 · 1988-04-21
- In Re Estrada Crim. 8524 · 1965-12-23