In re S.C. CA3

Filed 4/25/16 In re S.C. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 S.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C079500 Law.

THE PEOPLE, (Super. Ct. No. JV136551)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

S.C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Minor S.C. appeals following the denial of her request to seal records outside the custody of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 786.1 She contends the juvenile court erred by failing to seal records in the possession of law

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

1

enforcement, the probation department, and the district attorney’s office. 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 was filed alleging that S.C. committed a burglary in violation of Penal Code section 459, and that S.C. possessed an alcoholic beverage in violation of Business and Professions Code section 25662, subdivision (a). Following her admission to committing petty theft in violation of Penal Code section 484, subdivision (a), S.C. was placed on informal probation under section 654.2. In June 2015, after finding that S.C. had satisfactorily completed informal 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, S.C. contends the juvenile court erred by failing to seal records in the possession of law enforcement, the probation department, and the district attorney’s office. We disagree. At the time the section 602 petition was dismissed, section 786 provided, in relevant part: “If the minor satisfactorily completes . . . an informal program of supervision pursuant to Section 654.2, . . . 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; Stats. 2014, ch. 249, § 2.) “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. [Citation.]” (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