PC1203.4 - Revision history

Sysop: /* =As of 01/01/1995 (Amended by AB1327) */

2019-09-03T01:55:28Z

=As of 01/01/1995 (Amended by AB1327)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:55, 3 September 2019
Line 235:		Line 235:
	(e) If, after receiving notice pursuant to subdivision (d), the prosecuting attorney fails to appear and object to a petition for dismissal, the prosecuting attorney may not move to set aside or otherwise appeal the grant of that petition.		(e) If, after receiving notice pursuant to subdivision (d), the prosecuting attorney fails to appear and object to a petition for dismissal, the prosecuting attorney may not move to set aside or otherwise appeal the grant of that petition.

	=====As of 01/01/1995 (Amended by AB1327)====		====As of 01/01/1995 (Amended by AB1327)====
	SECTION 1. Section 1203.4 of the Penal Code is amended to read:		SECTION 1. Section 1203.4 of the Penal Code is amended to read:

Sysop at 03:24, 5 July 2017

2017-07-05T03:24:40Z

Show changes

Sysop: /* Appeals */

2017-04-03T00:43:03Z

Appeals

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:43, 3 April 2017
Line 164:		Line 164:
	===Appeals===		===Appeals===

	A denial of a PC1203.4 petition is an appealable order. (''People v. Chandler (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 782, 787.) It is considered an "order made after judgment, affecting the substantial rights of the party," and therefore is an appealable order under PC1237(b). On the felony Notice of Appeal form, CR-120, box 2.b.(3) would be checked and write "an order made after judgment (PC1237(b))." A Certificate of Probable Cause is not required for an appeal of a denial of a PC1203.4.		A denial of a PC1203.4 petition is an appealable order. (''People v. Chandler'' (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 782, 787.) It is considered an "order made after judgment, affecting the substantial rights of the party," and therefore is an appealable order under PC1237(b). On the felony Notice of Appeal form, CR-120, box 2.b.(3) would be checked and write "an order made after judgment (PC1237(b))." A Certificate of Probable Cause is not required for an appeal of a denial of a PC1203.4.

	==County practices==		==County practices==

Sysop at 18:27, 19 February 2017

2017-02-19T18:27:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:27, 19 February 2017
Line 161:		Line 161:

	Relief under PC1203.4 does not remove one from the Megan's Law website. (''Doe v. California Depart. of Justice'' (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1095.)		Relief under PC1203.4 does not remove one from the Megan's Law website. (''Doe v. California Depart. of Justice'' (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1095.)

			===Appeals===

			A denial of a PC1203.4 petition is an appealable order. (''People v. Chandler (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 782, 787.) It is considered an "order made after judgment, affecting the substantial rights of the party," and therefore is an appealable order under PC1237(b). On the felony Notice of Appeal form, CR-120, box 2.b.(3) would be checked and write "an order made after judgment (PC1237(b))." A Certificate of Probable Cause is not required for an appeal of a denial of a PC1203.4.

	==County practices==		==County practices==

Sysop: /* Consequences of PC1203.4 relief */

2017-02-18T19:06:56Z

Consequences of PC1203.4 relief

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:06, 18 February 2017
Line 134:		Line 134:

	===Consequences of PC1203.4 relief===		===Consequences of PC1203.4 relief===

			====PC136.2(i) Criminal Protective Order after conviction====
			There is no published caselaw on how a PC1203.4 on a case affects any PC136.2(i) after-conviction Criminal Protective Order. So you can argue it two ways. One is of course that the PC1203.4 relieves the person from the PC136.2 order. The other way is to say the PC136.2 order survives a grant of a PC1203.4, which may help convince the judge to grant the PC1203.4.

			On the one hand, the statute is clear. If a person receives a PC1203.4, "he or she shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted." However, despite this strong language, courts have narrowly interpreted this, leading many to complain that a PC1203.4 order is about as good as a wet piece of toilet paper. The California Supreme Court in People v. Vasquez (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1225 said that "the 'penalties and disabilities' resulting from conviction, from which a probationer may be released pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.4, do not include nonpenal restrictions or qualifications imposed for public protection . . . ." Then there's a long list of examples, including attorney licensing, physician licensing, alcohol vendor licensing, becoming a law enforcement officer, or gambling licenses.


			Vasquez does have a bit of nuisance to it. Vasquez was about a SVP commitment in which one of the predicate sex crimes was a Texas conviction that had been dismissed under a rehabilitative statute similar to PC1203.4.


			For example, A PC1203.4 on a sex crime does not remove the information from the Megan's Law website. (Doe v. California Department of Justice (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1095.) The information on the Megan's Law website "is protective rather than punitive, and imposes no affirmative disability on the offender." (Id. at p. 1114.)

			There is one unpublished case that says a PC136.2 CPO survives a PC1203.4 grant, People v. Larkin (Aug. 20, 2014, H039857). The decision said, "Section 1203.4 itself did not compel the court to terminate the protective order." This decision was based on Vasquez.


	====Restitution fund====		====Restitution fund====

Sysop: /* Offenses for which expungement is not available */

2017-02-03T00:54:54Z

Offenses for which expungement is not available

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:54, 3 February 2017
Line 33:		Line 33:
	\|-		\|-
	\|PC311.3\|\|Sexual exploitation of a child\|\|Added by AB20(2013)		\|PC311.3\|\|Sexual exploitation of a child\|\|Added by AB20(2013)
			\|-
			\|PC311.11\|\|Possession of sexual matter depicting child\|\|Added by AB20(2013)
	\|-		\|-
	\|PC261.5(d) as a felony\|\|Statutory rape by an adult on a <16-year old victim		\|PC261.5(d) as a felony\|\|Statutory rape by an adult on a <16-year old victim

Sysop: /* Motion */

2016-10-20T00:12:31Z

Motion

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:12, 20 October 2016
Line 126:		Line 126:

	A subsequent petition for PC1203.4 relief may be made if based on different facts than the earlier denied petition. (''People v. McLernon'' (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 569.)		A subsequent petition for PC1203.4 relief may be made if based on different facts than the earlier denied petition. (''People v. McLernon'' (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 569.)

			===Payment===

			Statute allows courts to charge up to $150/case for filings under PC1203.4. Courts vary wildly about how much is actually charged. However, a court can not require payment at the time of filing and should only require payment after determining the filer's ability to pay. (''Lewis v. Clark'' (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 563.) An oral hearing on ability to pay is not required. (''Ibid.'')

	===Consequences of PC1203.4 relief===		===Consequences of PC1203.4 relief===

Sysop: /* County practices */

2016-09-28T16:50:56Z

County practices

@@ Line 144: / Line 144: @@
 ==County practices==
-===Contra Costa===
+See [[Expungement#Expungement by counties|Main expungement page]]
 ==Statute==

Sysop at 05:11, 9 September 2016

2016-09-09T05:11:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:11, 9 September 2016
Line 42:		Line 42:

	===Cases for which expungement is discretionary===		===Cases for which expungement is discretionary===

			====Always discretionary====
	{\| class="wikitable"		{\| class="wikitable"
	\|Code\|\|Crime\|\|Notes		\|Code\|\|Crime\|\|Notes
Line 89:		Line 91:
	\|VC14601.5\|\|Driving with knowledge of suspended license		\|VC14601.5\|\|Driving with knowledge of suspended license
	\|}		\|}

			====Discretionary by failure to complete probation successfully====

			Post-probation conduct may be considered to determine if PC1203.4 relief would be in the interests of justice. (''People v. McLernon (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 569

	===Cases for which expungement is mandatory===		===Cases for which expungement is mandatory===
Line 110:		Line 116:
	"[A] defendant is not required to have successfully fulfilled all the terms of probation for the entire probationary period in order to qualify for relief under Penal Code section 1203.4. Once the trial court had terminated defendant's probation prior to the termination date, the court had no further discretion to deny a motion for relief under Penal Code section 1203.4." (People v. Guillen (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 975, 1001.)		"[A] defendant is not required to have successfully fulfilled all the terms of probation for the entire probationary period in order to qualify for relief under Penal Code section 1203.4. Once the trial court had terminated defendant's probation prior to the termination date, the court had no further discretion to deny a motion for relief under Penal Code section 1203.4." (People v. Guillen (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 975, 1001.)

	A person who gets an early termination of probation that results in ~~a prison~~ sentence is not eligible for PC1203.4 relief. (''People v. Johnson'' (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 252.)		A person who gets an early termination of probation that results in imposition of sentence is not eligible for PC1203.4 relief. (''People v. Johnson'' (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 252.)

	If one day before expiration of probation, the court summarily revokes probation, and then reinstates and terminates, that is not considered a successful early termination of probation, because at no time did the court excuse the probationer from complying with all the conditions of probation. (''People v. Chandler'' (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 782, 790.)		If one day before expiration of probation, the court summarily revokes probation, and then reinstates and terminates, that is not considered a successful early termination of probation, because at no time did the court excuse the probationer from complying with all the conditions of probation. (''People v. Chandler'' (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 782, 790.)

Sysop: /* Contra Costa */

2016-08-31T18:38:26Z

Contra Costa

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:38, 31 August 2016
Line 139:		Line 139:

	===Contra Costa===		===Contra Costa===
			The entire packet is filed at the clerk's office of the appropriate courthouse. The clerk will forward a copy to Probation. The probation officer will do an investigation and make a recommendation as whether it should be granted or denied. If the recommendation is to grant, it will be forwarded to a judge who will probably sign it; there is no court hearing. If the recommendation is to deny, it will be forwarded to the District Attorney's office, and then a court hearing date will be given.

	Filing fee for an infraction or misdemeanor without probation is $60. Filing fee for a misdemeanor or a felony with probation is $150.		Filing fee for an infraction or misdemeanor without probation is $60. Filing fee for a misdemeanor or a felony with probation is $150.

Line 147:		Line 149:
	Misdemeanors and infractions with the most recent misdemeanor in Pittsburg are filed in Pittsburg.		Misdemeanors and infractions with the most recent misdemeanor in Pittsburg are filed in Pittsburg.

	Martinez wants one original plus ~~one copy for the District Attorney and one copy for Probation plus any additional~~ copies ~~for yourself~~.		Martinez wants one original plus two copies.
	Richmond ~~and Pittsburg~~ want original plus one additional copy.
			Richmond want original plus one additional copy.

			Pittsburg just wants original.

	===Sacramento===		===Sacramento===