51 Cal.App.5th 47
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- In 1995 E.B. pled guilty to one count of oral copulation with a minor, completed probation, and later sought collateral relief.
- In 2011 the superior court allowed E.B. to withdraw his plea and dismissed the accusatory pleading under Penal Code § 1203.4; later he received a certificate of rehabilitation and the offense was reduced to a misdemeanor.
- In July 2018 E.B. petitioned to seal his arrest records under Penal Code § 851.91 (the CARE Act); the superior court denied the petition, construing § 851.91’s phrase “vacated or reversed on appeal” to mean vacatur only on appeal.
- On appeal E.B. argued that his § 1203.4 dismissal amounted to a vacatur and therefore § 851.91 entitles him to sealing as a matter of right; the Attorney General agreed the statute should be read disjunctively (vacated or reversed).
- The Court of Appeal held the statutory phrase is disjunctive (vacatur need not occur on appeal) but § 1203.4 relief is not a “vacation” that annuls or voids a conviction; therefore E.B. was not entitled to sealing under § 851.91.
- The court also rejected the argument that denying § 851.91 relief is a new "penalty or disability" barred by § 1203.4, explaining sealing is not a State-imposed penalty but a potential consequence of third‑party use of records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a dismissal under Penal Code § 1203.4 qualifies as a conviction that has been “vacated” under § 851.91, entitling the petitioner to mandatory sealing. | The People/AG: the phrase “vacated or reversed on appeal” is disjunctive; "vacated" need not be limited to appellate vacatur and may include vacatur by any court. | E.B.: § 1203.4 withdrawal/dismissal effectively vacated his conviction and thus qualifies him for mandatory sealing under § 851.91. | The court: “vacated or reversed on appeal” is disjunctive (vacatur may be by any court), but § 1203.4 dismissal does not annul or void the conviction in the sense required by § 851.91, so E.B. is not entitled to sealing; denial is not a § 1203.4‑proscribed penalty. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Vasquez, 25 Cal.4th 1225 (Cal. 2001) (§ 1203.4 relieves penalties and disabilities but does not expunge or obliterate the fact of conviction).
- In re Jesusa V., 32 Cal.4th 588 (Cal. 2004) (ordinary, disjunctive meaning of the word “or” in statutory construction).
- People v. Sharman, 17 Cal.App.3d 550 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971) (denial of record‑sealing is not a State‑imposed penalty or disability covered by § 1203.4).
- In re Bandmann, 51 Cal.2d 388 (Cal. 1958) (statutory titles/headings are not controlling when the statute is clear).
- People v. Gross, 238 Cal.App.4th 1313 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (discussing that § 1203.4 does not nullify the underlying conviction and collateral consequences may remain).