227 Cal. App. 4th 717
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Smith was charged in 1995 with multiple sex offenses involving a minor; he pled no contest to four counts in a negotiated disposition.
- The court sentenced him to probation with dismissal of the remaining counts; the maximum potential sentence was six years.
- In 1997, §1203.4 was amended to prohibit expungement for certain sex offenses, including some 288/288a/289 categories, while others remained eligible.
- Smith completed probation in July 1999; in 2013 he moved to dismiss the pre-1997 offenses under §1203.4, which the trial court denied.
- The People argued that amendments since the plea foreclose relief for some counts; Smith argued there was a vested-right or implicit-term theory under his plea.
- The Court of Appeal reviewed whether §1203.4 relief could still be granted for counts 4 and 9 (288a(b)(2) and 289(i)) and addressed the retroactivity and implicit-term arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §1203.4(b) prohibit dismissal for certain offenses? | People contends 1203.4(b) bars relief for 288a(b)(2) and 289(i). | Smith argues dismissal is still available under §1203.4 for those offenses. | §1203.4(b) does not bar relief for 288a(b)(2) and 289(i). |
| Is the 2000 amendment to §1203.4 retroactive as to vested-right relief for 261.5(d)? | Retroactivity should apply; vested rights exist. | Court did not consider the merits; record insufficient for vested-right theory. | Remand to consider the vested-right theory; not reached on merits. |
| Does §1203.4 relief constitute an implicit term of the plea bargain for 288(c) relief? | Arata/Doe-like theory; relief under §1203.4 implied in plea. | Indicated sentence is not a plea bargain; no implied term binding changes in law. | Relief under §1203.4 as to 288c not implied by the plea; not violated by later amendments. |
| Did the 1997 amendment to §1203.4 apply retroactively to bar relief for 288 offense? | Amendment restricts relief for 288 offenses already ongoing on probation. | N/A or not separately pressed beyond above arguments. | Court treated the 1997 amendment as not freezing entitlement; other counts remain subject to relief due to later reasoning. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Harris, 57 Cal.4th 64 (Cal. 2013) (plea agreements do not guarantee immunity from statutory changes)
- Acuna, 77 Cal.App.4th 1056 (Cal.App.2000) (expungement not clearly part of plea bargain; changes to law may apply)
- Arata, 151 Cal.App.4th 778 (Cal.App.2007) (plea bargains may include implied relief; probation relief tied to section 1203.4)
- Doe v. Harris, 57 Cal.4th 64 (Cal. 2013) (reiterates whether plea terms bind defendant against later legal changes)
- Chandler, 203 Cal.App.3d 782 (Cal.App.1988) (probation relief as a contract-like entitlement separate from plea bargains)
- Johnson, 134 Cal.App.2d 140 (Cal.App.1955) (expungement of conviction as rehabilitation under probation)