Filed 6/24/20 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, H046693 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 184646) v. E.B., Defendant and Appellant. Appellant E.B.1 appeals from the superior court’s order denying his petition to seal his arrest records (Pen. Code, § 851.91).2 He argues that the court misinterpreted section 851.91, and that based on having obtained section 1203.4 relief, he is entitled to have his arrest records sealed as a matter of right. We disagree and affirm the order. 1 Rule 8.90(b) of the California Rules of Court directs us to “consider referring to” certain individuals “by first name and last initial, or, if the first name is unusual or other circumstances would defeat the objection of anonymity, by initials only,” in order to protect those individuals’ privacy. The list of people to whom this rule applies includes “[p]ersons in other circumstances in which personal privacy interests support not using the person’s name . . . .” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b)(10).) In this opinion, we refer to appellant by his first and last initials, given that the sole purpose of this appeal is to attempt to vindicate a statutory privacy right. 2 Subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. I. Background On November 16, 1995, appellant pleaded guilty to a single count of oral copulation with a minor (former § 288a, subd. (b)(1)).3 He successfully completed his probation. In July 2011, he sought relief under section 1203.4, and the superior court permitted appellant to withdraw his guilty plea and dismissed the complaint. In January 2018, the court granted appellant a certificate of rehabilitation. The court later granted appellant’s motion to reduce the offense to a misdemeanor, and appellant was removed from the sex offender registry by the California Department of Justice. In July 2018, appellant filed a petition to seal his arrest records under section 851.91. In December 2018, the superior court denied the petition, finding that appellant’s dismissal under section 1203.4 did not satisfy the requirements necessary to obtain section 851.91 relief: “So I don’t think . . . that [section] 851.91 is appropriate in this situation. I think that the language is not crafted as well as it could have been. [¶] I take the vacation, the use of the word vacate to mean on appeal, or in conjunction with the next phrase, appeal. [¶] So I don’t think it is appropriate in this situation. I don’t think [section] 1203.4 constitutes a vacation of conviction as contemplated by the legislature for the [section] 851.91.” II. Discussion A. Legal Framework 1. Standard of Review The issue that appellant raises on appeal is solely one of statutory construction. We exercise de novo review when we engage in statutory construction. (John v. Superior Court (2016) 63 Cal.4th 91, 95-96.) “Statutory construction begins with the plain, 3 Effective January 1, 2019, section 288a was amended and renumbered as section 287. (Stats. 2018, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals