In re M.P. CA2/4 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/2/24 In re M.P. CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR
In re M.P., a Person Coming B331335
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No.TJ23571 )
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
M.P.
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Sharonda P. Bradford, Judge Pro Tempore.
Affirmed.
Courtney M. Selan, 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, Steven D. Matthews and Ryan M. Smith,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant M.P. was deemed a ward of the juvenile court
under Welfare and Institutions Code section 6021 after admitting
to driving a stolen car and other crimes; he was placed on
probation in November 2020. He had one probation violation in
September 2021, and he admitted to felony charges in petitions
filed in April, September, and November 2022. After serving a
probation term in a community camp, M.P. requested that all of
his petitions be dismissed and his records sealed, asserting that
under section 786, he had “satisfactorily completed” probation.
The juvenile court denied his request based on M.P.’s multiple
probation violations. M.P. appealed. We affirm, finding that the
juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in declining to dismiss
the petitions and seal M.P.’s records.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Petitions
1. January 2020 petition
On January 7, 2020, the People filed a petition under
section 602 alleging that on January 4, 2020 M.P. violated
Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a), taking or driving a
vehicle without consent (a felony, count 1); Vehicle Code section
2800.2, driving recklessly while fleeing a police officer (a felony,
count 2); and Vehicle Code section 20002, subdivision (a), hit-and-
1 All undesignated section references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code.
2
run causing property damage (a misdemeanor, count 3). The
detention report stated that M.P. stole a family member’s car,
and when officers attempted to stop the car for having no rear
lights, M.P. attempted to evade officers and injured another
driver in a collision when he failed to stop at a traffic light. M.P.
was deemed eligible for deferred entry of judgment, and was
released to his mother pending adjudication. The detention
report noted that a few months earlier, M.P. had been expelled
from school for stealing a car belonging to school personnel; the
case was not prosecuted at the time. The January 2020 petition
was adjudicated with the April 2020 petition, discussed below.
2. April 2020 petition
On April 9, 2020, the People filed a petition under section
602 relating to the alleged car theft at school. The petition
alleged that in October 2019, M.P. violated Vehicle Code section
10851, subdivision (a), taking or driving a vehicle without
consent (a felony, count 1); and Vehicle Code section 12500,
subdivision (a), driving without a valid driver’s license (a
misdemeanor, count 2). The alleged incident occurred after M.P.
allegedly stole a teacher’s car key at school, and drove the car out
of the parking lot. M.P. was deemed eligible for deferred entry of
judgment, and was released to his mother pending adjudication.
On September 2, 2020, M.P. admitted count 1 of the April
2020 petition. The court therefore sustained the petition as to
count 1; count 2 was dismissed. M.P. remained released to his
mother, and disposition was continued.
A November 3, 2020 hearing addressed the disposition for
the April 2020 petition and adjudication of the January 2020
petition. Pursuant to a plea agreement, counts 1 and 2 in the
January 2020 petition were reduced to misdemeanors. M.P.
3
admitted all three counts in the January 2020 petition, and the
court sustained the petition. As to both petitions, M.P. was
declared a ward of the court, placed on informal probation, and
released to his mother. The conditions of his probation included
not committing any crimes, and not driving a motor vehicle
unless he was licensed, insured, and had permission from the
owner.
3. September 2021 notice of probation violation
On September 24, 2021, the People filed a notice of
probation violation and request for hearing, alleging that M.P.
drove a car without a license. The People alleged that on
September 1, 2021, deputies from the Los Angeles Sheriff’s
Department conducted a traffic stop of a car that had been stolen
in a carjacking on August 25, 2021. M.P. was driving the car
without a license and without permission from the car’s owner;
he was arrested. The People alleged M.P.’s actions violated the
condition of his probation barring him from driving without a
license, insurance, and permission from the vehicle’s owner.
M.P. admitted the allegation, and the juvenile court found
the allegation to be true. The court ordered that M.P. remain
home on probation.
4. January 2022 petition
On January 19, 2022, the People filed a petition under
section 602 in San Bernardino County alleging that on January
15, 2022, M.P. violated Penal Code section 496d, subdivision (a),
receiving a stolen vehicle (a felony, count 1); Vehicle Code section
2800.2, driving recklessly while fleeing a police officer (a felony,
count 2); Penal Code section 25850, carrying a loaded firearm in
public (a felony, count 3); and Penal Code section 148, subdivision
(a)(1), resisting or obstructing a police officer (a misdemeanor,
4
count 4). A probation department report stated that San
Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department deputies observed M.P.
and another person in a vehicle that had been reported stolen;
M.P. was driving. When the deputies activated their lights and
sirens, M.P. led police on a chase that included running red
lights, nearly hitting other cars and pedestrians, driving into a
mall parking lot, and running on foot through the mall and
parking structure. The deputies found a stolen firearm near M.P.
in the parking structure. The owner of the car reported that his
car had been taken at gunpoint.
On February 2, 2022, M.P. admitted count 2 pursuant to a
plea agreement; the remaining counts were dismissed. The court
found the petition true as to count 2, and transferred the case to
Los Angeles County for disposition. On February 17, 2022, the
juvenile court in Los Angeles County committed M.P. to the
community detention program pending disposition. On March
25, 2022, the court ordered M.P. home on probation, and
terminated the community detention program.
5. April 2022 petition
On April 19, 2022, the People filed a petition under section
602 in San Bernardino County alleging that on April 16, 2022,
M.P. violated Penal Code section 496d, subdivision (a), receiving
a stolen vehicle (a felony). On April 22, 2022, M.P. admitted the
allegation and the court found it to be true. The case was
transferred to Los Angeles County for disposition. The juvenile
court in Los Angeles County ordered M.P. home on probation.
6. September 2022 petition
On September 7, 2022, the People filed a petition under
section 602 alleging that on September 4, 2022, M.P. violated
5
Penal Code section 25400, subdivision (a), carrying a concealed
firearm in a vehicle.
7. November 2022 petition
On November 3, 2022, after M.P.’s 18th birthday, the
People filed a petition under section 602 alleging that on August
22, 2022, when M.P. was 17 years old, he violated Penal Code
section 215, subdivision (a), carjacking (a felony, count 1); and
Penal Code section 211, second degree robbery (a felony, count 2).
The petition also alleged a count 3, which was dismissed the
following day. On January 18, 2023, the petition was amended to
include felony attempted second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§
211, 664, count 4). M.P. admitted count 4 pursuant to a plea
deal, the juvenile court sustained the petition on count 4, and
counts 1 and 2 were dismissed. On the January 2020, April 2020,
January 2022, April 2022, and November 2022 petitions, M.P.
was placed in the camp community placement program for a term
of seven to nine months, with 78 days of custody credit.
On January 25, 2023, the September 2022 petition
(carrying a concealed firearm) was dismissed before wardship
under section 782 and the record was sealed.
B. Motion to dismiss and seal
M.P. was delivered to his camp placement on January 31,
2023. A probation officer’s report noted that M.P. “engaged in a
physical altercation” on February 15, 2023 that showed “poor
judgment.” On April 17, 2023, M.P. was involved in another
physical altercation in which he kicked someone in the head and
failed to comply with instructions to stop. On May 18, 2023 M.P.
initiated a physical altercation. M.P. was earning credits toward
his high school diploma. He completed his required 100 hours of
community service on March 30, 2023.
6
On August 14, 2023, a probation officer filed a petition
seeking M.P.’s early release under section 778. The petition
asserted a change in circumstances, in that M.P.’s “behavior
within the school environment was stellar and he has exhibited
tremendous improvement with his peers.” M.P. had earned his
high school diploma, received an honor roll award, and displayed
leadership abilities. M.P. had participated in multiple programs
in camp, including therapy and a substance abuse program, and
he had been working as kitchen personnel. M.P.’s mother was
planning to move to another state, and M.P. had been accepted
into a housing program that provided a structured setting and
support; a place was being held for him. M.P.’s multidisciplinary
team agreed it would be in M.P.’s best interest to request early
termination of probation and a move to the available housing.
At a hearing on August 16, 2023, the juvenile court granted
the request for early termination. The court then asked whether
M.P. was “eligible for sealing, or should he apply at a later date?”
The prosecutor asserted that M.P. “should apply at a later date
given that he picked up five petitions while on probation.”2 The
court asked whether it was prevented from sealing the records
2 Section 781 provides that after a minor turns 18, the minor
may petition the court to seal juvenile court records, and the
court shall seal the records “[i]f, after hearing, the court finds
that since the termination of jurisdiction . . . the person has not
been convicted of a felony or of any misdemeanor involving moral
turpitude and that rehabilitation has been attained to the
satisfaction of the court.” (§ 781, subd. (a)(1).)
7
under section 707, subdivision (b).3 M.P.’s counsel asked for
additional time to review the file.
After counsel had reviewed the file, the court noted that the
People objected to the sealing based on M.P.’s “performance on
probation.” M.P.’s counsel said he “ultimately did perform well,”
and none of his sustained petitions involved a section 707,
subdivision (b) offense. The People argued that M.P. “did not
perform well on probation,” because he had been caught driving
four or five stolen cars and carrying guns, and the last offense
would have been a section 707, subdivision (b) offense “but the
People reduced it so [M.P.] wouldn’t have a strike going into
adulthood.”
The court acknowledged “the nature of the offenses,” and
the “escalating behavior” M.P. had demonstrated. It noted that
the last offense began with a carjacking. The court also observed
that M.P. had behaved well in camp, but stated, “I think it’s a
little early to seal. [¶] It would be very difficult to indicate this is
satisfactory completion.” The court continued, “However, what I
would encourage him to do is to apply for sealing and if within
the next year he does not pick up an adult case, this court would
be very happy to seal all his petitions.”
M.P.’s counsel said, “I wouldn’t say he performed well while
he was on probation. He did seem to rehabilitate while in camp.”
The court acknowledged this, but stated that while M.P. was on
3 Section 786, subdivision (d) states, “A court shall not seal a
record or dismiss a petition pursuant to this section if the petition
was sustained based on the commission of an offense listed in
subdivision (b) of Section 707 that was committed when the
individual was 14 years of age or older unless the finding on that
offense was dismissed or was reduced to a misdemeanor or to a
lesser offense that is not listed in subdivision (b) of Section 707.”
8
probation, “He got several violations. It’s hard to find someone
with that many violations satisfactorily completing probation.”
The court reiterated, “What I’m considering is whether he
satisfactorily completed probation. He is not satisfactorily
completing probation when he has at least five violations.” In its
written ruling, the juvenile court stated that M.P.’s motion to
dismiss and seal the petitions was denied.
M.P. timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
M.P. asserts that the juvenile court should have granted
his request to dismiss his petitions and seal his records under
section 786, because his success in camp demonstrated a
successful completion of probation.4 The People assert that the
juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying M.P.’s
request because M.P. reoffended after every petition except the
last one, when he was in custody. “A decision to grant or deny
section 786 relief is reviewed for abuse of discretion. [Citation.]
Under this standard, ‘“a trial court’s ruling will not be disturbed,
and reversal of the judgment [or order] is not required, unless the
trial court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or
patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage
of justice.”’” (In re D.H. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 44, 54.)
Section 786, subdivision (a)(1) states that if a ward of the
juvenile court “satisfactorily completes” probation, the court shall
order the petition dismissed and order the records sealed.
“Satisfactory completion” of probation “shall be deemed to have
occurred if the person has no new findings of wardship or
4 M.P. addresses all of his petitions as a group; he does not
assert that dismissal and sealing were warranted for any
particular petition.
9
conviction for a felony offense or a misdemeanor involving moral
turpitude during the period of supervision or probation and if the
person has not failed to substantially comply with the reasonable
orders of supervision or probation that are within their capacity
to perform.” (§ 786, subd. (c)(1).)
M.P. was placed on probation in November 2020. The
conditions of his probation included not committing any crimes,
and not driving a motor vehicle without being licensed, insured,
and having permission of the owner. M.P. admitted that he
committed crimes, including driving stolen cars without a license,
in September 2021, January 2022, April 2022, and August 2022.
The January, April, and November 2022 petitions were
sustained, and each was a felony. Under the plain language of
section 786, subdivision (a), M.P. did not achieve “satisfactory
completion” of his probation. (See In re D.H., supra, 58
Cal.App.5th at p. 54; In re K.B. (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 348, 356.)
M.P. asserts that the juvenile court erred by relying on his
purported “escalating behavior” as described in petition
allegations, rather than relying only on sustained findings. M.P.
asserts that such considerations do “not comply with the
standards required by section 786.” However, although the
juvenile court noted the carjacking allegation in the final
petition, the court made clear that it was basing its decision on
whether M.P. successfully completed probation, not the
allegations in the petition: “What I’m considering is whether he
satisfactorily completed probation. He is not satisfactorily
completing probation when he has at least five violations.
[¶] That’s what I’m basing the ruling on is that he did not
satisfactorily complete probation.”
10
M.P. also argues that he “could have performed no better”
in his camp placement, and “[t]his should have been the standard
warranting relief under section 786.” M.P. cites no authority for
the proposition that the juvenile court was required to consider
M.P.’s compliance with his probation conditions during only a
limited period of time—while he was at camp from January to
August 2023—rather than the entire period of his probation. The
juvenile court was not obligated to ignore M.P.’s repeated
probation violations because his later performance at camp was
satisfactory.
M.P. therefore has not demonstrated that the juvenile court
abused its discretion by declining to dismiss M.P.’s petitions and
seal the records under section 786.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
COLLINS, ACTING P. J.
We concur:
MORI, J.
ZUKIN, J.
11