Filed 3/20/20; Certified for Publication 4/9/20 (order attached) COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FREDERIC CARL SANNMANN, D075600 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2018-00003358- CU-WM-CTL) DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, John Meyer, Judge. Reversed. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Thomas S. Patterson, Assistant Attorney General, Anthony R. Hakl and Maureen C. Onyeagbako, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Appellant. Paul H. Neuharth, Jr., for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 1997, Frederic Sannmann pleaded guilty to felony robbery (Pen. Code, § 211),1 which rendered him ineligible to own firearms (former § 12021, now § 29800). In 2003, he successfully moved under section 1203.4, subdivision (a) (hereafter § 1203.4(a)) to set aside his conviction for most purposes. By statute, this relief did not restore Sannmann's right to own firearms. (§ 1203.4(a).) In 2011, Sannmann successfully moved—with the prosecutor's concurrence—to set aside the earlier set-aside order, to withdraw his 1997 felony guilty plea, and to instead plead guilty to misdemeanor theft (§ 487) nunc pro tunc to the date of his original plea. Sannmann immediately notified the California Department of Justice (DOJ) of these changes and the DOJ eventually updated its records accordingly. However, six years later, when Sannmann tried to buy a shotgun from a gun store, the DOJ blocked the purchase based on Sannmann's original 1997 felony conviction. Sannmann filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the DOJ to release any holds on his ability to purchase firearms based on the 1997 felony conviction. The trial court believed it lacked the authority to determine the validity of the 2011 set-aside order entered by another superior court judge. Thus, finding Sannmann's record in the criminal case disclosed only a misdemeanor conviction (by virtue of the 2011 set-aside order), the court entered judgment for Sannmann and ordered the DOJ to release its hold on Sannmann's purchase. 1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. Citations refer to the version of the statutes in effect at the time of the relevant event. 2 On appeal, the DOJ contends the trial court erred by awarding mandamus relief based on the 2011 set-aside order because the 2011 order was an unauthorized act in excess of the superior court's jurisdiction. The DOJ does not otherwise seek in this appeal to invalidate the 2011 set-aside order. For reasons we will explain, on the narrow issue before us, we agree the trial court erred by granting mandamus relief based on the 2011 set-aside order and reverse the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The 1997 Guilty Plea In 1997, Sannmann pleaded guilty in case number SCD129922 (the criminal case) to robbery under section 211, a "straight felony."2 He was placed on three years' probation, subject to serving 365 days in jail and paying a fine. The 2003 Set-aside Order In 2003, after completing his term of probation, Sannmann moved under section 1203.4(a) to set aside his ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals