People v. J.C.
246 Cal. App. 4th 1462
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 2012 J.C., a juvenile, admitted second‑degree burglary by shoplifting (then a felony) and was required to submit a DNA sample to the state databank.
- After Proposition 47 (2014) reclassified certain felonies (including low‑value shoplifting) as misdemeanors, J.C. petitioned under Penal Code §1170.18 to recall her felony sentence, obtain redesignation to a misdemeanor, and expunge her DNA record.
- The juvenile court granted redesignation and resentencing but denied DNA expungement, relying on Coffey v. Superior Court.
- The Fourth District in Alejandro N. later held that §1170.18 redesignation entitles a petitioner to DNA expungement (if no other basis to retain the record).
- The Legislature then enacted Assembly Bill No. 1492 (2015, ch. 487), amending Penal Code §299(f) to add an express reference to §1170.18 among statutes that do not authorize relieving the duty to provide DNA; the amendment was interpreted here to bar expungement tied to §1170.18 petitions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether redesignation under §1170.18 requires expungement of previously collected DNA records | People: §1170.18 does not require expungement; legislature later clarified expungement is prohibited | J.C.: Alejandro N. controls — redesignation treats the conviction as a misdemeanor "for all purposes" and therefore DNA must be expunged | Court: Denied. Bill No. 1492 amended §299(f) to preclude expungement in connection with §1170.18 petitions, so expungement is not required |
| Whether Bill No. 1492 can be applied to petitions resolved before its enactment | People: Bill clarifies, not changes, law and thus governs pre‑enactment petitions | J.C.: Application would be retroactive and impermissible | Court: Bill is a clarification of ambiguous Proposition 47 law; application to pre‑enactment cases is proper |
| Whether Bill No. 1492 impermissibly amends Proposition 47 | J.C.: Amendment conflicts with Prop 47’s text and amendment limitations | People: Prop 47 was ambiguous on expungement; amendment is consistent with its purpose | Court: No conflict — Prop 47 does not clearly require expungement, so Bill No. 1492 is consistent/clarifying |
Key Cases Cited
- Coffey v. Superior Court, 129 Cal.App.4th 809 (Cal. Ct. App.) (courts may deny DNA expungement when felony wobbler is later reduced to misdemeanor)
- Alejandro N. v. Superior Court, 238 Cal.App.4th 1209 (Cal. Ct. App.) (redesignation under §1170.18 entitles petitioner to DNA expungement)
- People v. Buza, 231 Cal.App.4th 1446 (Cal. Ct. App.) (addressed constitutionality of arrestee DNA collection; prompted legislative response)
- Doble v. Superior Court, 197 Cal. 556 (Cal. 1925) (a conviction charged as a felony is treated as a felony until reduced at sentencing; thereafter deemed a misdemeanor)
- Western Security Bank v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.4th 232 (Cal. 1997) (statutory amendment that clarifies prior law can be applied to pre‑enactment cases)
- Carter v. California Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 38 Cal.4th 914 (Cal. 2006) (clarification v. change test for retroactivity of statutory amendments)