California Court of Appeal Jul 13, 2016 No. D068983Unpublished
Filed 7/12/16 In re T.C. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re T.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D068983 THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J235509)
v.
T.C.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Roderick
Shelton, Judge. Affirmed.
Rex A. Williams, 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, Peter Quon, Jr. and Anthony
Da Silva, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2014, the district attorney filed two petitions against T.C. (Minor) for unrelated
incidents. For each petition, the juvenile court declared Minor a ward of the court under
Welfare and Institutions Code section 6021 and placed or continued her on probation. In
2015, the court found that Minor satisfactorily completed her terms of probation for the
offense alleged in the later-filed petition and sealed the records relating to that petition,
but denied her request to seal the records relating to her first petition. Minor contends the
court was misinformed about the first petition's status when it denied her request and
former section 7862 required the court to seal the records pertaining to her first petition.
We conclude the court did not err and affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Petition No. 1: G6762
In May 2014, Minor was found driving a stolen vehicle. She subsequently
admitted a felony offense (Pen. Code, § 496d) alleged in petition G6762, and the juvenile
court declared her a ward. The court placed Minor on probation, imposed a number of
conditions relating to her probation, and ordered her to obey all federal, state, county, and
city laws.
1 Subsequent unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2 Subsequent unspecified references to "former section 786" are to the version effective January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2015. (Stats. 2014, ch. 249, § 2, p. 2506.)
2
Petition No. 2: G7823
Several months later while on probation for her prior offense, a campus security
officer found Minor carrying a knife on school grounds. She ran away from the officer
before he could detain her in the school's office. The district attorney filed a new petition
(G7823) against Minor. In addition to one count of possessing a knife on school grounds
(Pen. Code, § 626.10, subd. (a)(1)), the petition alleges she violated the terms of
probation on her prior offense and her performance on probation had been unsatisfactory.
Minor admitted the knife possession offense, and the court sustained the petition. The
court continued Minor's wardship, placed her on probation, imposed new terms and
conditions, and ordered her to complete several classes and community service.
By the September 2015 annual review hearing, Minor's probation officer
recommended sealing the records for G7823, noting her satisfactory compliance with
probation terms. The probation officer's report informed the court that Minor had
sustained a true finding on her knife possession offense while she was on probation for
her prior felony; however, Minor reportedly demonstrated progress in 2015 and earned
passing grades in school. Accepting the probation department's recommendations, the
juvenile court found that Minor had satisfactorily completed the terms and conditions of
probation for petition G7823, dismissed it, ordered that "the arrest upon which G7823 is
based is deemed never to have occurred[,]" sealed all records relating to her current
petition, and terminated jurisdiction.
3
Motion to Dismiss and Seal First Petition
At an October 2015 hearing, Minor moved to "dismiss and seal petition G6762."
Her counsel stated "this is one of those situations where the minor successfully completed
probation," recapped the court's dismissal and sealing of Minor's most recent petition, and
requested that G6762, which she referred to as Minor's "closed petition," be dismissed
and sealed as well. The court responded: "I'm not going to seal that one. They have to
file a motion. I only seal the open ones." Counsel then requested "a minute order that
reflects the court's denial of my motion."
Minor timely appealed the order denying her motion to seal the records pertaining
to her first petition, G6762.
DISCUSSION
Minor contends the juvenile court erred by not sealing her first petition under
former section 786 based on its mistaken impression that the first petition was already
dismissed or "closed" by October 2015. She also argues the court's September 2015
finding of her satisfactorily completing probation necessarily applied to both the first and
second petitions.
Former section 786 provides in pertinent part: "If the minor satisfactorily
completes . . . a term of probation for any offense not listed in subdivision (b) of Section
707, the court shall order the petition dismissed, and the arrest upon which the judgment
was deferred 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. . . ."
(Italics added.)
4
When the sealing order was issued, the unambiguous language of former section
786 required the court to seal records pertaining to a petition based upon first finding that
the minor satisfactorily completed probation for an offense alleged in the petition. (In re
Y.A. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 523, 526-527 (Y.A.).) Former section 786 does not
authorize a juvenile court to seal the records of a prior petition based merely on a minor's
satisfactorily completing probation for an offense alleged in a later-filed petition. (Y.A.,
at p. 527 ["Nowhere in the statute is there any reference to a prior petition."].) The fact
that a minor's probation terms for offenses alleged in different petitions are combined or
jointly supervised is not relevant to the sealing inquiry under section 786. (See Y.A., at
p. 527.)
Based on our review of the record, only Minor's last petition qualified for sealing
under former section 786. At Minor's annual review hearing, her probation officer did
not request or recommend the dismissal and sealing of her first petition despite
summarizing her performance on probation for both offenses. The court accordingly
limited its satisfactory completion of probation finding to the knife possession offense
alleged in G7823, commending Minor on her improved classwork, which occurred in
2015 after she was continued on probation for her second offense. The court did not find
that Minor satisfactorily completed probation for her first offense, and there is nothing in
the record to suggest she successfully did so given her sustained second petition.
Minor argues remand is required based on the court's erroneous belief the first
petition was already dismissed when it denied her request. We disagree remand is
required. Viewed in context, we are satisfied the court did not believe the first petition
5
was already dismissed. Counsel explicitly and repeatedly stated that she was moving to
"dismiss and seal" the first petition, which would seemingly refute any notion the petition
was already dismissed. In any event, the record indicates the court decided in September
that Minor satisfactorily completed probation for only her last offense, knowing Minor
was on probation for two different and unrelated offenses. Based on the October 2015
colloquy, which occurred after the court terminated jurisdiction, Minor's primary
objective was merely to preserve her appellate argument; the court's September finding
remained unchanged.
In summary, there is no indication in the record that Minor satisfactorily
completed probation for her first offense, and the court correctly declined to seal records
relating to her first petition. Minor retains the ability to request sealing for those records
at a later date. (See § 781; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.830.)
DISPOSITION
The order denying Minor's motion to seal G6762 is affirmed.
HALLER, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
McDONALD, J.
IRION, J.
6
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that a juvenile court is not required to seal records of a prior petition under former Welfare and Institutions Code section 786 simply because a minor successfully completed probation for a subsequent, unrelated petition.
Issues
Whether former section 786 requires the sealing of a prior petition's records upon the successful completion of probation for a later-filed petition.
Whether the juvenile court erred in its factual understanding of the status of the first petition when denying the motion to seal.
Disposition. affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Former section 786 does not authorize a juvenile court to seal the records of a prior petition based merely on a minor's satisfactorily completing probation for an offense alleged in a later-filed petition.”
“The fact that a minor's probation terms for offenses alleged in different petitions are combined or jointly supervised is not relevant to the sealing inquiry under section 786.”