People v. Phillips CA1/1

Filed 7/25/22 P. v. Phillips CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A162136 v. MATTHEW DAVID PHILLIPS, (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR-480484) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Matthew David Phillips appeals from a postjudgment order denying his petition for a certificate of rehabilitation under Penal Code1 section 4852.01. The trial court denied defendant’s petition because it concluded he did not meet the statutory requirements for relief under section 4852.01, subdivision (b). On appeal, defendant argues allowing similarly situated individuals who were sentenced to prison in lieu of probation—and thus eligible for relief under section 4852.01, subdivision (a)—to obtain a certificate of rehabilitation violates equal protection. He further contends he should qualify for a certificate of rehabilitation under section 4852.01, subdivision (a) because he in fact served a prison sentence that was later vacated. We disagree and affirm the order.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

I. BACKGROUND A. Prior Proceedings The following facts were set forth in this court’s prior nonpublished opinion, People v. Superior Court (Phillips) (Feb. 5, 2010, A124599) (Phillips I): Defendant was charged by amended information with committing a lewd act on a child under the age of 14 (John Doe 3) (§ 288, subd. (a); count 1), videotaping a child engaged in sexual activity (John Doe 1) (§ 311.4, subd. (c); count 2), three counts of surreptitiously recording a confidential communication (sexual conduct) without the victim’s consent (§ 632, subd. (a); counts 3, 6, & 8), exhibiting a videotape of a child engaged in sexual activity to a child (§ 311.2, subd. (d); count 4), exhibiting a videotape of a child engaged in sexual activity to an adult (§ 311.1, subd. (a); count 5), photographing a child (John Doe 2) engaged in sexual activity for commercial purposes (§ 311.4, subd. (b); count 7), and dissuading a witness (John Doe 2) (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1); count 9). On September 26, 2008, the information was further amended to add a charge of child endangerment by infliction of mental suffering (§ 273a, subd. (a); count 10). Defendant pleaded no contest to counts 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 10, which carried a maximum exposure of 12 years in state prison, in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts. The trial court sentenced defendant to a total prison term of two years eight months for counts 3, 6, and 8, and the court placed defendant on supervised probation for a period of five years, to commence upon his release from prison on counts 4, 7, and 10. As relevant to this appeal, the People challenged the grant of probation. In Phillips I, supra, A124599, this court agreed the hybrid sentence of