In re A.N. CA3

Filed 4/19/16 In re A.N. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

In re A. N., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile C079501 Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, (Super. Ct. No. JV135293)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A. N.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Minor A. N. appeals following the denial of her request to seal records outside the custody of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 786. She contends the juvenile court erred by failing to grant her request to seal records in the

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

possession of all law enforcement agencies, the district attorney’s office, and the Department of Justice. We conclude the juvenile court did not err, and therefore affirm. DISCUSSION We dispense with a recitation of the facts because they are unnecessary to the resolution of this appeal. It suffices to say that a section 602 petition alleged that A. N. committed burglary in violation of Penal Code section 459. Following her admission to this charge and her failure to comply with the terms of informal probation, A. N. was declared a ward and placed on probation. In June 2015, after finding that A. N. had completed probation, the juvenile court dismissed the section 602 petition and ordered all records in the custody of the court sealed pursuant to section 786. On appeal, A. N. contends the juvenile court erred by failing to grant her request to seal records in the possession of all law enforcement agencies, the district attorney’s office, and the Department of Justice. According to A. N., the juvenile court improperly interpreted the scope of the sealing requirement under section 786. We disagree. At the time the section 602 petition was dismissed, section 786 provided, in relevant part: “If the minor satisfactorily completes . . . probation under Section 725, . . . the court shall order the petition dismissed, and the arrest . . . 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 . . . .” (§ 786.) “In construing a statute, our role is to ascertain the Legislature’s intent so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. [Citation.] In determining intent, we must look first to the words of the statute because they are the most reliable indicator of legislative intent. [Citation.] If the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, the plain meaning of the statute governs.” (People v. Lopez (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1051, 1056.) In other words, if there is “no ambiguity or uncertainty in the language, the Legislature is presumed to have