People v. Ricci, A151291

In 1996 (SCR22536) Ricci was convicted of one felony (criminal threats, §422) and three misdemeanors (child abuse §273a(b); vandalism §594(a); drug influence HS §11550) and was denied probation. In 1989 (MCR97449) he was placed on probation for a misdemeanor (evading a peace officer §2800.1).
In 2016 Ricci filed petitions to dismiss misdemeanors: under §1203.4 for the 1989 probationed misdemeanor, and under §1203.4a for the three misdemeanors in the 1996 case (he did not seek relief as to the felony).
The trial court denied the §1203.4a petition in SCR22536, reasoning §1203.4a applies only to “misdemeanants” and that the statute’s command to “dismiss the accusatory pleading” could not be effectuated where felony counts remained.
The Attorney General conceded that a felony conviction in the same case does not automatically disqualify a defendant from §1203.4a relief as to misdemeanor counts.
The Court of Appeal held the trial court erred: §1203.4a by its plain terms applies to defendants convicted of misdemeanors and not granted probation, and nothing precludes dismissing individual misdemeanor counts even when felony counts remain. The matter was remanded for the trial court to rule on both petitions on the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a defendant convicted of both felony and misdemeanor counts in the same case may seek dismissal under §1203.4a of only the misdemeanor counts	The People argued (but ultimately conceded) that a felony conviction might preclude §1203.4a relief for misdemeanors in the same case	Ricci argued §1203.4a by its plain terms applies to any defendant convicted of misdemeanors and not granted probation, and permits dismissal of those misdemeanor counts even if felony counts remain	Court held §1203.4a applies to misdemeanor counts in that situation; trial court erred and must reconsider the petitions on the merits

People v. Mgebrov, 166 Cal. App. 4th 579 (2008) (statutes in pari materia should be harmonized; relief may be granted as to individual counts)
People v. Mendez, 234 Cal. App. 3d 1773 (1991) (distinguishes §1203.4 and §1203.4a relief; §1203.4a provides relief for nonprobationed misdemeanants)
People v. McLernon, 174 Cal. App. 4th 569 (2009) (describes mandatory versus discretionary relief under §1203.4 and §1203.4a)
In re Jennings, 34 Cal. 4th 254 (2004) (statutory plain meaning controls when unambiguous)
People v. Wheeler, 4 Cal. 4th 284 (1992) (headings do not alter statute’s explicit scope or meaning)