In re W.R.
A150435
| Cal. Ct. App. | Nov 6, 2017Background
- Minor W.R. had multiple juvenile petitions (2013–2016) across San Mateo and San Francisco counties; several petitions resulted in admissions/probation, others were dismissed or found not true. All petitions were ultimately transferred under a single San Francisco case number (JW14-6119).
- While on probation and later found incompetent on a 2015 felony petition, W.R. was sent to Summit Academy and thereafter satisfactorily completed his program and probationary supervision.
- W.R. moved under Welf. & Inst. Code § 786 to dismiss and seal juvenile records after satisfactory completion of probation; the juvenile court granted sealing for several petitions but denied sealing for (1) an October 3, 2014 petition dismissed as part of a plea bargain, (2) a September 5, 2014 petition not sustained, and (3) an October 2015 petition dismissed in the interests of justice under § 782.
- The court below concluded § 786’s phrase “in the case” did not mean the entire juvenile file and that § 786 did not authorize sealing records for the October 2015 § 782 dismissal because that petition was not one for which probation was granted.
- W.R. appealed; the appellate court reviewed statutory construction de novo and the trial court’s discretionary rulings for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (W.R.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does “in the case” in § 786 mean the entire juvenile file (so sealing applies to all petitions in the unitary file)? | "In the case" should be limited to the specific petition for which probation was granted; sealing applies only to records pertaining to that petition. | "In the case" means the whole juvenile case file under the unitary case number; satisfactory completion of probation should seal all records in that file. | Court: "in the case" ties to the dismissed petition, not automatically the entire file. |
| May § 786(e)(1) authorize sealing/dismissal of a prior petition that was dismissed via plea bargain while another petition produced probation? | No—only records for the petition that itself resulted in probation should be sealed under § 786(a)/(b). | Yes—when two unconsolidated petitions are resolved together producing a single probationary grant, the court may treat them as one for § 786 purposes and may seal the prior petition. | Court: § 786(e)(1) gives discretion to seal prior petitions that meet criteria; where plea bargaining produced probation for related petitions, court should treat them as one and seal the October 3, 2014 petition. |
| Does § 786 authorize sealing records for a petition filed after the last petition that produced probation (here, the October 2015 § 782 dismissal)? | No—§ 786 applies only to petitions for which probation was granted or prior petitions filed before the last probationary petition. | Yes—because the minor was on probation for other offenses when the subsequent petition arose and later completed probation, equity favors sealing. | Court: § 786 does not authorize sealing records for a subsequent petition that never produced probation; denial affirmed. Minor may seek sealing of that petition under § 781. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.V., 11 Cal. App. 5th 697 (2017) (discusses statutory purpose and construction of § 786)
- In re G.F., 12 Cal. App. 5th 1 (2017) (court required relief under § 786 where prosecutorial dismissal procedure frustrated statutory sealing scheme)
- In re R.T., 3 Cal. 5th 622 (2017) (rules on statutory interpretation principles)
- People v. Soria, 48 Cal. 4th 58 (2010) (discusses treatment of unconsolidated cases resolved by plea bargain)
- In re Jose S., 12 Cal. App. 5th 1107 (2017) (interpretation of related sealing statutes)