People v. Helton CA1/2

Filed 3/23/26 P. v. Helton CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A173747 v. ARNETT HELTON, JR., (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 5227378) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Arnett Helton appeals from an order denying his petition to seal and destroy his arrest record pursuant to Penal Code section 851.8.1 Defendant’s court-appointed counsel has asked this court to independently examine the record in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. Under section 851.8, subdivision (p), we lack jurisdiction to decide the appeal because no accusatory pleading was ever filed against defendant. In such circumstances, the appeal must instead be decided by the appellate division of the superior court. (§ 851.8, subd. (p)(2).) Accordingly, we will transfer this appeal to the Appellate Division of the Alameda County Superior Court.

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

BACKGROUND On February 23, 2005, defendant was arrested for rape (§ 261). (See Oakland Police Department, case no.5227378.) On March 6, 2023, representing himself, defendant filed a petition to seal his arrest record pursuant to section 851.91.2 And by order dated July 10, the trial court granted it. In March 2025, again representing himself, defendant filed a petition to seal and destroy his arrest record pursuant to section 851.8. The petition made reference to the history of his prior petition and cited to various rules and cases in a memorandum of points and authorities. But nowhere in this petition was there any reference to the facts or circumstances surrounding the crime for which defendant was arrested in 2005. On April 14, defendant’s petition came on for hearing. Defendant was not present. Defendant’s wife was present and advised the court that she has “everything that you need and [she] can speak on it.” After some discussion in which defendant’s wife admitted she was not an attorney, the court acknowledged her presence, but advised that he was not “accepting you as [defendant’s] representative,” going on to note that the court will “explain and hopefully you can understand.” The hearing then turned to some discussion about the history of defendant’s prior petition and what one or more agencies did or do not do in connection with it, and then to some discussion about records in the prison system. After that, the following occurred: “THE COURT: I’m kind of at a loss. First of all, I would deny the