California Court of Appeal Mar 24, 2016 No. E063208Unpublished
Filed 3/24/16 P. v. Marquez CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E063208
v. (Super.Ct.No. FBA1100675)
REGINA LENDIA MARQUEZ, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Eric M. Nakata,
Judge. Reversed with directions.
William D. Farber, 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, Melissa Mandel, Alana Butler and
Meredith S. White, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Regina Lendia Marquez applied under Penal Code
section 1203.4, for relief from the penalties and disabilities of her underlying conviction,
after she had successfully completed her probation, in compliance with all the terms
thereof for the entire period of probation. The trial court erroneously denied defendant’s
Once the trial court determines that the probationer has complied with the terms of
probation for the entire probationary period, however, then the application of the law—a
probationer’s entitlement to the relief afforded under Penal Code section 1203.4—to the
facts as found is a matter of law. In addition, the application of the law to undisputed
facts is a question of law, which the appellate court reviews independently. (People v.
Butler, supra, 105 Cal.App.3d 585, 588 [although the defendant failed to raise the issue
of entitlement to relief under Penal Code section 1203.4 in the trial court, based on his
early discharge from probation, the appellate court could nevertheless consider it because
it presented an issue of law arising from undisputed facts: What was the legal effect of
the early termination of his probation?].) The latter situation obtains here: The salient
facts are undisputed. We therefore assess the trial court’s ruling, denying defendant’s
petition for relief, under a de novo standard of review. (See, e.g., People v. Cromer
6
(2001) 24 Cal.4th 889, 893-894; Connerly v. State Personnel Bd. (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1169,
1175-1176.)
7
B. Defendant Was Entitled to Relief Under Penal Code Section 1203.4
The court denied defendant’s renewed petition for relief under Penal Code section
1203.4, ostensibly based on the seriousness of the offense. Defendant’s application to
withdraw her plea and to dismiss the charge was not based on the third, wholly
discretionary, scenario provided for in Penal Code section 1203.4. Because defendant’s
application was based on the first scenario, compliance with the terms of probation
during the probationary period, it was not open to the trial court to exercise its discretion
under the third scenario to find that the interests of justice required that relief be denied.
The essential facts were undisputed. Defendant had paid all her fees and fines.
She did not have any new law enforcement contacts or any violations of probation. She
had extricated herself from the abusive relationship that led to the offense. She had
reported to the probation officer regularly, as ordered. She had maintained gainful
employment, and had received a promotion. In short, defendant had been a model
probationer and, undisputedly, had fulfilled all the terms of her probation, throughout the
entire probationary period.
In such cases, a defendant is entitled to relief “as a matter of right,” and dismissal
is mandatory. (People v. Holman, supra, 214 Cal.App.4th 1438, 1459.) The trial court
had no discretion to deny relief. It erred as a matter of law in denying defendant’s
petition for relief under Penal Code section 1203.4; the court was obliged to allow her to
withdraw her plea, and was further obliged to dismiss the charge.
8
DISPOSITION
The trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for relief under Penal Code
section 1203.4. The order denying relief is reversed, and the matter is remanded for
further proceedings. Defendant is entitled to the relief provided by statute: The trial
court must allow defendant to withdraw her plea and must dismiss the charge.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER J. We concur:
HOLLENHORST Acting P. J.
MILLER J.
9
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. A defendant who has successfully fulfilled all terms of probation for the entire period is entitled to relief under Penal Code section 1203.4 as a matter of right, leaving the trial court with no discretion to deny the petition based on the nature of the underlying offense.
Issues
Whether a trial court has discretion to deny a Penal Code section 1203.4 petition when a defendant has fulfilled all terms of probation for the entire period.
Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's petition for relief under Penal Code section 1203.4.
Disposition. reversed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“In such cases, a defendant is entitled to relief “as a matter of right,” and dismissal is mandatory.”
“The trial court had no discretion to deny relief. It erred as a matter of law in denying defendant’s petition for relief under Penal Code section 1203.4”