People v. C.H.
2 Cal. App. 5th 1139
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 2011 C.H. pleaded to felony grand theft (Pen. Code § 487(c)) and provided a DNA sample under Proposition 69 (Pen. Code § 296).
- After Proposition 47 (2014) passed, C.H. petitioned under § 1170.18(f) to redesignate the felony as a misdemeanor and to expunge his DNA records.
- The juvenile court redesignated the felony as a misdemeanor but denied the DNA expungement request.
- C.H. appealed, arguing § 1170.18(k) — that a redesignated offense is a misdemeanor “for all purposes” — requires removal of DNA obtained as a result of the original conviction.
- The Attorney General defended retention of DNA under Proposition 69’s DNA statutes (Pen. Code §§ 296, 299), which (1) trigger DNA collection at conviction/plea and (2) narrowly list bases for expungement and expressly state a judge may not relieve the administrative duty to provide DNA because a felony is later reduced.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether redesignation under § 1170.18(k) requires expungement/removal of DNA obtained at the time of a felony conviction | § 1170.18(k)’s phrase “misdemeanor for all purposes” means the conviction is a misdemeanor retroactively, so DNA must be expunged | § 1170.18 does not address DNA; Proposition 69’s statutes trigger collection at conviction/plea, specify expungement grounds, and preclude relief when a conviction is later reduced | Court held redesignation does not require expungement; § 296 and § 299 control and remain effective for pre-redesignation convictions |
| Whether retaining DNA after redesignation violates equal protection | Retention treats similarly situated persons differently—those convicted after Prop 47 wouldn’t have to submit DNA | Retention is rationally related to public safety interests in Proposition 69 and preserving a comprehensive database | Court held retention passes rational-basis review and does not violate equal protection |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Park, 56 Cal.4th 782 (statutory interpretation of voter initiative language parallels legislative statutes)
- People v. Superior Court (Zamudio), 23 Cal.4th 183 (principles for construing penal statutes)
- People v. Feyrer, 48 Cal.4th 426 (reduction of a wobbler makes it a misdemeanor only prospectively)
- People v. Moomey, 194 Cal.App.4th 850 (reduced wobbler status is not retroactive)
- People v. Rivera, 233 Cal.App.4th 1085 (Proposition 47 borrowed § 17 language; redesignation effect)
- In re J.C., 246 Cal.App.4th 1462 (concordant holding: redesignation does not require DNA expungement)
- Alejandro N. v. Superior Court, 238 Cal.App.4th 1209 (contrasting authority holding redesignation requires expungement)