People v. C.B. (In Re C.B.)
237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 471
| Cal. | 2018Background
- Two juveniles (C.B. and C.H.) were adjudicated wards for offenses that were felonies when committed; both were ordered to submit DNA samples to the California DOJ databank.
- After Proposition 47 (2014) reclassified certain theft/drug felonies as misdemeanors, each petitioner obtained court redesignation of the offense as a misdemeanor and sought expungement/destruction of their DNA samples and profiles under Penal Code §299.
- Trial courts granted redesignation and fee relief but denied DNA expungement; the Courts of Appeal affirmed (one panel split in C.B.).
- The Supreme Court consolidated the cases and considered whether Proposition 47’s "misdemeanor for all purposes" language requires expungement of previously collected DNA, and whether equal protection requires expungement.
- The Court held: Proposition 47 does not create a statutory basis for expungement under §299, and equal protection does not compel expungement; judgments of the Courts of Appeal were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Prop. 47 redesignation compels expungement under Penal Code §299 | Redesignation makes the prior adjudication a misdemeanor "for all purposes," so samples/profiles must be expunged | §299(b) lists exclusive grounds for expungement (dismissal, acquittal, reversal, factual innocence); redesignation is not one of them | Redesignation does not supply a statutory ground for expungement; §299(b) controls and is exclusive |
| Whether Propositions 47 and 69 can be harmonized to permit expungement | Prop. 47’s broad "for all purposes" language should be read to override retention rules | Prop. 69/§299 governs retention/expungement and was not altered by Prop. 47; the two measures can be harmonized | They can be harmonized: Prop. 47 narrows future collection but does not expand retroactive expungement rights under §299 |
| Whether ballot materials/intent support expungement | Voter intent for Prop. 47 to eliminate collateral consequences implies DNA expungement | Ballot materials for Prop. 47 focus on punishment/costs; Prop. 69 focused on public safety/exoneration; materials do not indicate intent to alter §299 | Ballot arguments do not support reading Prop. 47 to change §299 expungement grounds |
| Equal protection challenge to differential treatment of pre- vs post-Prop.47 offenders | It is unequal to retain samples from those adjudicated before Prop. 47 while exempting future offenders | State has rational bases (cost, public safety, retention furthers Prop.69 aims); only rational-basis review applies | Rational-basis review satisfied; equal protection claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Buza, 4 Cal.5th 658 (2018) (background on DNA databank law and samples/profiles)
- Coffey v. Superior Court, 129 Cal.App.4th 809 (2005) (expungement available only on limited statutory grounds; later reduction to misdemeanor is not alone a basis)
- Alejandro N. v. Superior Court, 238 Cal.App.4th 1209 (2015) (held redesignation justified expungement — disapproved by this Court)
- People v. Valencia, 3 Cal.5th 347 (2017) (discussion of Prop. 47’s reclassifications)
- People v. Robinson, 47 Cal.4th 1104 (2010) (juvenile adjudication is not a conviction)
- People v. Chatman, 4 Cal.5th 277 (2018) (state financial interests can be a legitimate rationale)
- People v. Turnage, 55 Cal.4th 62 (2012) (equal protection rational-basis review principles)