People v. Walton CA3

Filed 12/20/23 P. v. Walton CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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) ----

THE PEOPLE, C097696

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22FE011065)

v.

GREGORY WAYNE WALTON II,

Defendant and Appellant.

A certificate of rehabilitation and pardon is available to certain felons who have successfully completed their sentences and have undergone an additional period of rehabilitation. (Pen. Code, §§ 4852.01 et seq.; all further section references are to the Penal Code.) Here, defendant Gregory Wayne Walton II was convicted of human trafficking, an offense requiring registration as a sex offender. (§ 236.1, subd. (b); § 290, subd. (c)(1).) Just over five years later, he filed a petition for a certificate of rehabilitation. The trial court denied the petition because defendant was subject to a 10- year rehabilitation period that had not yet elapsed. The trial court also rejected defendant’s assertion that he qualified for relief from the sex offender registration

1

requirement. Defendant argues the trial court erred. We affirm because we conclude the trial court correctly applied the relevant statutes. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendant pled no contest to human trafficking (§ 36.1, subd. (b)) on March 13, 2017, and was sentenced to three years probation on the same day. He completed probation on March 13, 2020. Three months later, he got a dismissal of his conviction pursuant to section 1203.4. A little over five years after he was sentenced, defendant filed a petition for certificate of rehabilitation and pardon. The prosecutor asked the court to drop the petition as premature. In attempting to counter the prosecutor’s request, defendant said he was going to request relief from sex offender registration. The trial court denied defendant’s petition as premature and noted defendant’s ineligibility to have his registration requirement terminated. Defendant timely appealed. DISCUSSION Defendant contends the trial court erred in two ways: (1) in denying his petition for a certificate of rehabilitation; and (2) in concluding he is ineligible for section 290 registration relief under section 290.5. Neither contention has merit. I The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s petition A certificate of rehabilitation is an intermediate step toward securing a full pardon and allows the superior court to investigate and recommend pardon applicants to the governor. (People v. Ansell (2001) 25 Cal.4th 868, 875-876.) A certificate of rehabilitation procedure is available to felons, with certain exceptions, who have successfully completed their sentences and have undergone an additional and sustained period of rehabilitation in California. (§ 4852.03, subd. (a); see §§ 4852.01, subds. (a)- (c), 4852.06; Ansell at p. 875.) The length of the rehabilitation period is a base five years plus an additional period determined by the petitioner’s conviction. (See § 4852.03, subd. (a).) A person is not eligible to file a petition for a certificate of rehabilitation until this period has elapsed. (§ 4852.03, subd. (b).)