Person v. A.V.
11 Cal. App. 5th 697
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Minor A.V. (age 15) admitted to possession/sale of concentrated cannabis and was placed on deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) probation, later converted to wardship with juvenile probation after probation violations.
- Probation imposed multiple conditions (community service, essay, substance counseling, testing); A.V. had early positive drug tests but later completed required programs, submitted multiple negative tests, and completed community service and counseling.
- The juvenile court dismissed the petition under Welf. & Inst. Code § 786 but refused to order sealing of A.V.’s juvenile records, citing prior DEJ lift and probation violations.
- The narrow legal question: whether a court may find a ward’s probation compliance sufficient to dismiss a petition but insufficient to seal records under § 786 (i.e., apply different standards for dismissal and sealing).
- The Court of Appeal held the statute requires a single standard: if the court finds “satisfactory completion” (defined by substantial compliance) sufficient to dismiss, it must also order sealing under § 786.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 786 permits using different standards for dismissal and for sealing records | The People argued prior DEJ lift and probation violations show lack of substantial compliance, so sealing may be denied despite dismissal | A.V. argued that once the court finds satisfactory completion (substantial compliance) to dismiss, the statute mandates sealing; one standard applies to both outcomes | Court held § 786 uses a single mandatory standard—satisfactory completion defined as substantial compliance—and if met, the court must both dismiss and order sealing |
Key Cases Cited
- Delaney v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.3d 785 (statutory interpretation—look first to the statute's plain language)
- Dyna–Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com., 43 Cal.3d 1379 (1990) (construe statutory language to give effect to every word)
- People v. Superior Court (Zamudio), 23 Cal.4th 183 (2000) (use of "shall" is generally mandatory unless inconsistent with legislative purpose)
- In re Greg F., 55 Cal.4th 393 (2012) (harmonize statutory provisions to avoid absurd results)
- In re J.G., 3 Cal.App.5th 521 (2016) (distinguishing "satisfactory" vs. "successful" completion; effect of § 786 relief)