People v. Alesana CA2/7
B340811
Cal. Ct. App.Jan 9, 2026Check TreatmentFiled 1/9/26 P. v. Alesana CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
THE PEOPLE, B340811
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. NA111426)
v.
ELIJAH ALESANA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court
of Los Angeles County, Laura Laesecke, Judge. Affirmed in part
and reversed in part.
Sally Patrone, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant
Attorney General, Jason Tran and Taylor Nguyen, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
__________________________
Elijah Alesana appeals the trial court’s denial of his
petition to expunge his conviction for felony grand theft by
embezzlement under Penal Code1 section 1203.4 and to reduce
his offense to a misdemeanor. We agree the court erred in
denying his expungement request and in failing to consider his
request to reduce the offense to a misdemeanor.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2019, Alesana pleaded no contest to felony grand theft
by embezzlement (§§ 487, subd. (a), 504). The trial court placed
him on formal probation for three years and ordered him to pay
$27,600 in victim restitution (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)) and to perform
45 days of community service.
In 2022, a few days before his grant of probation was set to
expire, Alesana advised the court he had completed only four of
the 45 days of community service. Alesana stipulated to a new
grant of probation set to expire one year later.
One year later, Alesana submitted to the court proof that
he had partially completed his community service obligation.
Alesana again stipulated to a new grant of probation to expire in
six months. His restitution obligation was converted to a civil
judgment.
On the date Alesana’s new probation period was set to
expire, Alesana appeared in court and the court summarily
revoked his probation because Alesana still had 17 days of
community service outstanding. Alesana agreed to serve
eight days in county jail in lieu of completing the remaining
community service. Alesana was remanded that day and spent
1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
eight days in custody. After Alesana served the time, the court
terminated his probation, finding that Alesana “completed his
obligations” and that his restitution obligation had been “handled
via civil judgment.”
In June 2024, Alesana filed a petition for expungement of
his felony grand theft conviction using a standard form petition
(CR-180, rev. Jan. 1, 2024). He checked the box associated with
relief under section 1203.4, indicating he “ha[d] fulfilled the
conditions of probation for the entire period thereof.” As to
section 17, subdivision (b), the form included the following pre-
printed statement: “Petitioner requests that the eligible felony
offenses listed above be reduced to misdemeanors under . . .
section 17[, subdivision] (b).” Alesana listed his offense on the
petition and indicated it was eligible to be reduced to a
misdemeanor. Alesana also attached a declaration to the
petition, stating he “would like to expunge [his] criminal record.”
He stated he had no new criminal cases, had been working and
going to school, and planned to become an attorney.
In July 2024, the court held a hearing at which Alesana
was present without counsel. The court denied the petition under
section 1203.4 and based its denial on Alesana’s failure to pay
$27,600 in victim restitution. The court did not address his
request to reduce his conviction to a misdemeanor under
section 17, subdivision (b).
Alesana timely appealed. (See People v. Chavez (2016)
5 Cal.App.5th 110, 114 [order denying relief under section 1203.4
is appealable].)
3
DISCUSSION
Alesana contends he was entitled to section 1203.4 relief
because he fulfilled his probation conditions for the entire
probation period. He also contends that the trial court abused its
discretion by denying his request to reduce his felony conviction
to a misdemeanor under section 17, subdivision (b).
A. The Court Erred in Denying Alesana’s Petition Under
Section 1203.4
Section 1203.4 provides in pertinent part that a defendant
who has fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period
of probation “is entitled as a matter of right to have the plea or
verdict changed to not guilty, to have the proceedings expunged
from the record, and to have the accusations dismissed.”2 (People
v. Hawley (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 247, 249-250; accord, People v. Guillen (2013)218 Cal.App.4th 975, 991
.) If the petitioner meets the criteria for relief under section 1203.4, “the trial court is required to grant the requested relief.” (Hawley, at p. 250; accord, People v. Lewis (2006)146 Cal.App.4th 294, 297-298
.)
“ ‘ “A grant of relief under section 1203.4 is intended to
reward an individual who successfully completes probation by
2 However, “in any subsequent prosecution of the defendant
for any other offense, the prior conviction may be pleaded and
proved and shall have the same effect as if probation had not
been granted or the accusation or information dismissed.”
(§ 1203.4, subd. (a)(1); see People v. Park (2013) 56 Cal.4th 782,
803, fn. 10.) Further, the defendant may still be required to
disclose the conviction in applying for public office or for licensure
by any state or local agency. (§ 1203.4, subd. (a)(1).)
4
mitigating some of the consequences of his conviction and, with a
few exceptions, to restore him to his former status in society to
the extent the Legislature has power to do so.” ’ ” (People v. E.B.
(2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 47, 54.) The statute “provides substantial benefits [because] the successful probationer is generally released from all the ‘penalties and disabilities’ which otherwise would have resulted from the convictions.” (People v. Mazumder (2019)34 Cal.App.5th 732, 745
.)
Alesana contends the court erred in denying his petition for
mandatory relief based on his failure to pay victim restitution.
We accept the People’s concession that Alesana’s outstanding
restitution obligation that was converted to a civil judgment may
not serve as a basis for denying relief. As of 2023, section 1203.4
provides that a “petition for relief under this section shall not be
denied due to an unfulfilled order of restitution,” and an
unfulfilled order of restitution “shall not be grounds for finding
that a defendant did not fulfil[l] the condition of probation for the
entire period of probation.” (§ 1203.4, subd. (c)(3)(A) & (B) [Stats.
2022, c. 734 (S.B. 1106), § 3, eff. Jan. 1, 2023].)
The People nevertheless argue the ruling denying Alesana’s
request for expungement should be affirmed because Alesana did
not fulfill the other terms of his probation for the entire probation
period. They note that Alesana’s “consistent failure to perform
the required community service led to two extensions of his
probation and the ultimate revocation of probation.” These
circumstances do not justify the denial of section 1203.4 relief.
“Any violation of any of the probationary terms will
disqualify a probationer” from mandatory relief under
section 1203.4, subdivision (a). (People v. Guillen, supra,
218 Cal.App.4th at p. 991.) Here, however, the court only
5
summarily revoked Alesana’s probation and never found him in
violation of his probation. It is true that “[e]ven where a
defendant’s probation has not been revoked, relief under
[section 1203.4] may be denied absent a showing that the
defendant fulfilled the conditions of probation.” (People v.
Johnson (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 252, 262.) Although Alesana did
not complete the 45 days of community service that was part of
his original sentence, the court converted Alesana’s remaining
community service to jail time, and after Alesana served that
time in custody, the court concluded he had “completed his
obligations” to the court and terminated his probation.
Accordingly, the record demonstrates Alesana completed the
(amended) terms of his probation, and he is entitled to mandatory
expungement under section 1203.4, subdivision (a).
B. On Remand the Superior Court Must Consider Alesana’s
Request To Reduce Alesana’s Offense to a Misdemeanor
Under Section 17, Subdivision (b)
Under section 17, subdivision (b)(3), when a crime is
punishable as either a felony or a misdemeanor, i.e., it is a
“wobbler” (People v. Tran (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 877, 885), the trial court may reduce the offense to a misdemeanor “at the time of granting probation, or on application of the defendant or probation officer thereafter” (§ 17, subd. (b)(3)). The court has broad discretion in deciding whether to reduce a wobbler to a misdemeanor. (People v. Superior Court (Alvarez) (1997)14 Cal.4th 968, 977
; see § 17, subd. (b); People v. Park (2013)56 Cal.4th 782, 790-791
.) In exercising its discretion, the court
considers several factors, including “ ‘the nature and
circumstances of the offense, the defendant’s appreciation of and
6
attitude toward the offense, or his traits of character as evidenced
by his behavior and demeanor at the trial.’ ” (Alvarez, at p. 978.)
Grand theft by embezzlement of property valued at more
than $950, the offense for which Alesana was convicted, is a
“wobbler.” (People v. Selivanov (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 726, 758.)
Alesana asserts the trial court should have granted his request to
reduce his felony conviction to a misdemeanor. Because the court
did not address his request, on remand it must do so.
DISPOSITION
The order denying Alesana’s petition for relief is reversed
and remanded with directions to grant the petition for relief
under section 1203.4 and to consider the request to reduce his
offense to a misdemeanor under section 17, subdivision (b).
STONE, J.
We concur:
MARTINEZ, P. J.
FEUER, J.
7