In re S.G. CA1/1

Filed 5/18/16 In re S.G. CA1/1 Received for posting 5/19/16 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

In re S.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. S.G., A146231 Defendant and Appellant. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J1201545)

S.G. appeals from an order denying his request to have his DNA sample destroyed and DNA profile expunged from the state databank. The basis of S.G.’s request was that his DNA sample had been submitted in conjunction with an offense that, while a felony at the time it was committed, was reduced to a misdemeanor under Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act. This division recently held that the reduction of an offense to a misdemeanor under Proposition 47 does not entitle minors to have their DNA records expunged even if, as misdemeanants, they would not have been required to provide DNA samples in the first place. (In re J.C. (Apr. 28, 2016, A146103) __ Cal.App.4th __ (J.C.) [pp. 10-12].) We follow J.C. and affirm.

1

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2013, 16-year-old S.G. stole a necklace worth $300 and pleaded no contest to the allegation that he committed grand theft of property from the person of another, an offense that was then a felony.1 S.G. was already a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 based on previous misdemeanor offenses, and the juvenile court continued the wardship as a result of the plea. S.G. was placed on probation, and he was ordered to submit a DNA sample. In May 2015, the juvenile court terminated S.G.’s probation and wardship. A month later, S.G. filed a petition asking the court to redesignate his felony offense as a misdemeanor under Proposition 47, vacate its order directing him to provide a DNA sample, and order the sample destroyed and his DNA profile expunged from the state databank.2 The court granted the petition in part, by redesignating the felony offense as a misdemeanor and reducing S.G.’s maximum term of confinement, but it denied S.G.’s request for expungement of his DNA record. In denying the request for expungement, the court primarily relied on Coffey v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 809, which held that a defendant who pleaded guilty to a wobbler offense as a felony was not entitled to expungement of his DNA record after the charge was reduced to a misdemeanor under section 17.3 (Coffey, at pp. 812, 824.)