People v. Tye CA4/3

Filed 9/1/22 P. v. Tye CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G058109

v. (Super. Ct. No. 10HF2304)

MATTHEW CHRISTOPHER TYE, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Richard M. King, Judge. Reversed and remanded as directed. Matthew Christopher Tye, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Melissa Mandel and Kathryn Kirschbaum, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

In 2013, defendant Matthew Christopher Tye pleaded guilty to five counts of oral copulation with a minor and three counts of sexual intercourse with a minor under a plea deal negotiated with the prosecution. Pursuant to the terms of the plea deal, the trial court suspended the imposition of Tye’s sentence and placed him on five years’ probation. Tye filed numerous lawsuits over the years challenging his probation conditions; some challenges were successful while others were not. Among other things, Tye successfully appealed a court commissioner’s finding that he had violated his probation based on a procedural error. After completing probation, Tye moved to 1 dismiss the charges against him under Penal Code section 1203.4. The court acknowledged that Tye had completed probation and had no probation violations. Still, it denied his motion. It reasoned that while he had not sustained any probation violations, he had “failed to cooperate with his probation officer in areas of employment and maintaining contact.” It also opined that “[i]n hindsight, [Tye] turned out to be an unsuitable person for a grant of Probation.” On appeal, Tye contends the court improperly denied his motion. The Attorney General agrees, as do we. Section 1203.4, subdivision (a)(1), provides that after a “defendant has fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation, . . . the defendant shall, at any time after the termination of the period of probation, . . . be permitted by the court to withdraw [his or her] plea of guilty . . . and enter a plea of not guilty; . . . [and] the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant and . . . the defendant shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which [he or she] ha[s] been convicted . . . .” (Italics added.) Under this statute, defendants that have completed the terms of their probation are “entitled as a matter of right to the dismissal of the charge.” (People v. Guillen (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 975, 991.) “[W]hen a defendant has satisfied the terms of