People v. Maya, 33 Cal. App. 5th 266

In 2011 Misael Vences Maya pleaded guilty to DUI with priors (felony) and methamphetamine possession; sentenced to prison and advised of immigration consequences.
Maya completed state prison in 2012 and has since been continuously detained by U.S. DHS on removal grounds based on the drug conviction.
In 2015 Maya obtained reclassification of the drug conviction from felony to misdemeanor under Prop. 47 (Pen. Code § 1170.18).
In April 2018 Maya moved to expunge the now-misdemeanor drug conviction under Penal Code § 1203.4a; he presented evidence of institutional participation (AA, fire camp) but the record lacks the full motion and exhibits.
The trial court denied expungement and denied reconsideration, reasoning that custody since 2011 prevented a showing he had lived “an honest and upright life” in the community since judgment.
The Court of Appeal affirmed; the majority held custodial compliance does not satisfy the statutory standard, while a dissent argued the statute’s plain language includes time in custody and remand for an evidentiary hearing was required.

Issue	Maya's Argument	Trial Court/State's Argument	Held
Whether custodial behavior can prove the statutory requirement that defendant "lived an honest and upright life" after judgment under § 1203.4a(a)	Custodial good conduct (AA, fire camp, discipline) should count as evidence of living an honest and upright life	Court: institutional compliance cannot demonstrate how defendant would behave outside custody; custody prevented evaluation in the community	Affirmed: custodial compliance insufficient to satisfy "honest and upright life" requirement
Whether continuous detention (here by DHS) precludes expungement eligibility	DHS detention should not bar consideration; statute applies from date of judgment and includes time in custody	Court: continuous custody means no opportunity to evaluate law-abiding conduct in community; court may deny relief in discretion	Affirmed: continuous custody may be a proper basis for denying relief under § 1203.4a(b) discretion
Whether lack of probation or separate DUI conviction barred relief	Maya: those facts are not determinative of § 1203.4a eligibility	Court: mentioned them only as context; did not improperly treat them as legal bars	Affirmed: court’s comments were contextual, not error
Whether remand for evidentiary hearing was required	Maya: if custody evidence could count, an evidentiary hearing should be held	Court: discretionary denial supported; no abuse of discretion	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; dissent would remand for hearing

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (criminal plea advisement must include immigration consequences)
People v. Khamvongsa, 8 Cal.App.5th 1239 (2017) (felony reduced to misdemeanor is eligible for relief under § 1203.4a)
People v. Zeigler, 211 Cal.App.4th 638 (2012) (certificate of rehabilitation requires post-release rehabilitation; higher standard for demonstrating "honest and upright life")
People v. Chandlee, 90 Cal.App.3d Supp. 13 (1979) (§ 1203.4a conditions relate to one year after pronouncement of judgment)
People v. Galvan, 155 Cal.App.4th 978 (2007) (probation violations excused when defendant detained by immigration authorities; concerns probation context)
Ross v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.3d 899 (1977) (presumption that trial courts understand and apply the law correctly)