In re T.C. CA4/1 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • Filed 7/12/16 In re T.C. CA4/1
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
    COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION ONE
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    In re T.C., a Person Coming Under the
    Juvenile Court Law.
    D068983
    THE PEOPLE,
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                              (Super. Ct. No. J235509)
    v.
    T.C.,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Roderick
    Shelton, Judge. Affirmed.
    Rex A. Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
    Appellant.
    Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney
    General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Peter Quon, Jr. and Anthony
    Da Silva, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    In 2014, the district attorney filed two petitions against T.C. (Minor) for unrelated
    incidents. For each petition, the juvenile court declared Minor a ward of the court under
    Welfare and Institutions Code section 6021 and placed or continued her on probation. In
    2015, the court found that Minor satisfactorily completed her terms of probation for the
    offense alleged in the later-filed petition and sealed the records relating to that petition,
    but denied her request to seal the records relating to her first petition. Minor contends the
    court was misinformed about the first petition's status when it denied her request and
    former section 7862 required the court to seal the records pertaining to her first petition.
    We conclude the court did not err and affirm.
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    Petition No. 1: G6762
    In May 2014, Minor was found driving a stolen vehicle. She subsequently
    admitted a felony offense (Pen. Code, § 496d) alleged in petition G6762, and the juvenile
    court declared her a ward. The court placed Minor on probation, imposed a number of
    conditions relating to her probation, and ordered her to obey all federal, state, county, and
    city laws.
    1     Subsequent unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions
    Code.
    2      Subsequent unspecified references to "former section 786" are to the version
    effective January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2015. (Stats. 2014, ch. 249, § 2, p. 2506.)
    2
    Petition No. 2: G7823
    Several months later while on probation for her prior offense, a campus security
    officer found Minor carrying a knife on school grounds. She ran away from the officer
    before he could detain her in the school's office. The district attorney filed a new petition
    (G7823) against Minor. In addition to one count of possessing a knife on school grounds
    (Pen. Code, § 626.10, subd. (a)(1)), the petition alleges she violated the terms of
    probation on her prior offense and her performance on probation had been unsatisfactory.
    Minor admitted the knife possession offense, and the court sustained the petition. The
    court continued Minor's wardship, placed her on probation, imposed new terms and
    conditions, and ordered her to complete several classes and community service.
    By the September 2015 annual review hearing, Minor's probation officer
    recommended sealing the records for G7823, noting her satisfactory compliance with
    probation terms. The probation officer's report informed the court that Minor had
    sustained a true finding on her knife possession offense while she was on probation for
    her prior felony; however, Minor reportedly demonstrated progress in 2015 and earned
    passing grades in school. Accepting the probation department's recommendations, the
    juvenile court found that Minor had satisfactorily completed the terms and conditions of
    probation for petition G7823, dismissed it, ordered that "the arrest upon which G7823 is
    based is deemed never to have occurred[,]" sealed all records relating to her current
    petition, and terminated jurisdiction.
    3
    Motion to Dismiss and Seal First Petition
    At an October 2015 hearing, Minor moved to "dismiss and seal petition G6762."
    Her counsel stated "this is one of those situations where the minor successfully completed
    probation," recapped the court's dismissal and sealing of Minor's most recent petition, and
    requested that G6762, which she referred to as Minor's "closed petition," be dismissed
    and sealed as well. The court responded: "I'm not going to seal that one. They have to
    file a motion. I only seal the open ones." Counsel then requested "a minute order that
    reflects the court's denial of my motion."
    Minor timely appealed the order denying her motion to seal the records pertaining
    to her first petition, G6762.
    DISCUSSION
    Minor contends the juvenile court erred by not sealing her first petition under
    former section 786 based on its mistaken impression that the first petition was already
    dismissed or "closed" by October 2015. She also argues the court's September 2015
    finding of her satisfactorily completing probation necessarily applied to both the first and
    second petitions.
    Former section 786 provides in pertinent part: "If the minor satisfactorily
    completes . . . a term of probation for any offense not listed in subdivision (b) of Section
    707, the court shall order the petition dismissed, and the arrest upon which the judgment
    was deferred shall be deemed not to have occurred. The court shall order sealed all
    records pertaining to that dismissed petition in the custody of the juvenile court. . . ."
    (Italics added.)
    4
    When the sealing order was issued, the unambiguous language of former section
    786 required the court to seal records pertaining to a petition based upon first finding that
    the minor satisfactorily completed probation for an offense alleged in the petition. (In re
    Y.A. (2016) 
    246 Cal.App.4th 523
    , 526-527 (Y.A.).) Former section 786 does not
    authorize a juvenile court to seal the records of a prior petition based merely on a minor's
    satisfactorily completing probation for an offense alleged in a later-filed petition. (Y.A.,
    at p. 527 ["Nowhere in the statute is there any reference to a prior petition."].) The fact
    that a minor's probation terms for offenses alleged in different petitions are combined or
    jointly supervised is not relevant to the sealing inquiry under section 786. (See Y.A., at
    p. 527.)
    Based on our review of the record, only Minor's last petition qualified for sealing
    under former section 786. At Minor's annual review hearing, her probation officer did
    not request or recommend the dismissal and sealing of her first petition despite
    summarizing her performance on probation for both offenses. The court accordingly
    limited its satisfactory completion of probation finding to the knife possession offense
    alleged in G7823, commending Minor on her improved classwork, which occurred in
    2015 after she was continued on probation for her second offense. The court did not find
    that Minor satisfactorily completed probation for her first offense, and there is nothing in
    the record to suggest she successfully did so given her sustained second petition.
    Minor argues remand is required based on the court's erroneous belief the first
    petition was already dismissed when it denied her request. We disagree remand is
    required. Viewed in context, we are satisfied the court did not believe the first petition
    5
    was already dismissed. Counsel explicitly and repeatedly stated that she was moving to
    "dismiss and seal" the first petition, which would seemingly refute any notion the petition
    was already dismissed. In any event, the record indicates the court decided in September
    that Minor satisfactorily completed probation for only her last offense, knowing Minor
    was on probation for two different and unrelated offenses. Based on the October 2015
    colloquy, which occurred after the court terminated jurisdiction, Minor's primary
    objective was merely to preserve her appellate argument; the court's September finding
    remained unchanged.
    In summary, there is no indication in the record that Minor satisfactorily
    completed probation for her first offense, and the court correctly declined to seal records
    relating to her first petition. Minor retains the ability to request sealing for those records
    at a later date. (See § 781; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.830.)
    DISPOSITION
    The order denying Minor's motion to seal G6762 is affirmed.
    HALLER, Acting P. J.
    WE CONCUR:
    McDONALD, J.
    IRION, J.
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: D068983

Filed Date: 7/13/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021