legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re M.J. CA1/2

mk's Membership Status

Registration Date: May 18, 2017
Usergroup: Administrator
Listings Submitted: 0 listings
Total Comments: 0 (0 per day)
Last seen: 05:23:2018 - 13:04:09

Biographical Information

Contact Information

Submission History

Most recent listings:
P. v. Mendieta CA4/1
Asselin-Normand v. America Best Value Inn CA3
In re C.B. CA3
P. v. Bamford CA3
P. v. Jones CA3

Find all listings submitted by mk
In re M.J. CA1/2
By
12:31:2018

Filed 10/30/18 In re M.J. CA1/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

In re M.J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.J.,

Defendant and Appellant.

A146228

(Contra Costa County

Super. Ct. No. J1301056)

Appellant M.J. was declared a ward of the court based on a felonious act that was reclassified as a misdemeanor in the wake of Proposition 47. He appeals from an order in which the juvenile court ruled that his reclassification did not entitle him to have his collected DNA sample and genetic profile removed from the database maintained by the California Department of Justice, arguing that Proposition 47 requires reclassified offenses to be treated as misdemeanors for all purposes, including DNA expungement.

After briefing in this appeal was completed, we ordered the matter stayed pending our Supreme Court’s decision in cases that raised the identical issue, In re C.B. (S237801) and In re C.H. (S237762.) In those cases, our Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 47 does not authorize the relief that M.J. seeks. (In re C.B. (2018) 6 Cal.5th 118, 122.).

Once the Supreme Court’s decision in In re C.B. became final, we lifted the stay on M.J.’s appeal, and directed M.J. to file a supplemental brief, to which the Attorney General could respond. M.J. has elected to not file a supplemental brief.

Our Supreme Court has conclusively rejected the arguments that M.J. advances (In re C.B., supra, 6 Cal.5th at pp. 129-130.) We are therefore obliged to follow the doctrine of stare decisis and affirm the juvenile court order. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.)

The order appealed from is affirmed.

_________________________

Miller, J.

We concur:

_________________________

Kline, P.J.

_________________________

Richman, J.

A146228, People v. M.J.





Description Appellant M.J. was declared a ward of the court based on a felonious act that was reclassified as a misdemeanor in the wake of Proposition 47. He appeals from an order in which the juvenile court ruled that his reclassification did not entitle him to have his collected DNA sample and genetic profile removed from the database maintained by the California Department of Justice, arguing that Proposition 47 requires reclassified offenses to be treated as misdemeanors for all purposes, including DNA expungement.
After briefing in this appeal was completed, we ordered the matter stayed pending our Supreme Court’s decision in cases that raised the identical issue, In re C.B. (S237801) and In re C.H. (S237762.) In those cases, our Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 47 does not authorize the relief that M.J. seeks. (In re C.B. (2018) 6 Cal.5th 118, 122.).
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.
Views 9 views. Averaging 9 views per day.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale