Filed 4/19/17 In re T.T. CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR


In re T.T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
T.T.,
Defendant and Appellant.
A146294

(Contra Costa County
Super. Ct. No. J1400722)


MEMORANDUM OPINION
T.T. (Minor) appeals an order denying his request to expunge his DNA from the state’s DNA database.
In 2014, Minor admitted felony grand theft and misdemeanor battery and was adjudged a ward of the court. He was ordered to provide a DNA sample pursuant to the DNA and Forensic Identification Database and Data Bank Act of 1988. (Pen. Code, § 295 et seq.; § 296.1.) In 2015, Minor petitioned to have his felony offense reclassified as a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhood and Schools Act, and to have his DNA expunged from the state’s DNA database. (§ 295 et seq.; see § 490.2.) The juvenile court granted the request to reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor but denied the request to remove his DNA sample and expunge the data from the database. Minor contends the juvenile court erred in denying his request.
Our colleagues in Division One have considered this issue and concluded DNA expungement is not appropriate in circumstances such as these and we agree. (In re. J.C. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1462.) Briefly stated:
Proposition 47, effective November 5, 2014, reduces penalties for certain nonserious and nonviolent property crimes and allows those previously convicted of such crimes to apply for reduced sentences. (In re J.C., supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 1469.) Section 1170.18, subdivision (k), added by Proposition 47, provides: “Any felony conviction that is recalled and resentenced under subdivision (b) or designated a misdemeanor under subdivision (g) shall be considered a misdemeanor for all purposes [except certain restrictions regarding firearms].”
California also requires that DNA samples be collected from all persons convicted of felonies, including juveniles adjudicated under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 for committing any felony offense. (§§ 295, 296, subd. (a)(1); In re J.C., supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 1470.) Under section 299, a person can obtain expungement of his or her DNA records from the databank under certain circumstances, including if a qualifying conviction is reversed and the case dismissed. (§ 299, subd. (b)(2).)
At the time the trial court made its ruling in this case, section 299, subdivision (f) provided, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including Sections 17, 1203.4, and 1203.4a, a judge is not authorized to relieve a person of the separate administrative duty to provide [a DNA sample] if a person has been found guilty or was adjudicated a ward of the court by a trier of fact of a qualifying offense as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 296, . . . or pleads no contest to a qualifying offense as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 296.” (See In re J.C., supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1470-1471.) Our colleagues explained in In re J.C. that this provision “has been interpreted to preclude a defendant from obtaining expungement of his or her DNA record despite the reduction of a felony conviction for a wobbler offense to a misdemeanor.” (Id. at p. 1471, citing Coffey v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 809, 820-823.) But in Alejandro N. v. Superior Court (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1226-1230 (Alejandro N.), Division One of the Fourth Appellate District concluded that section 299 did provide a basis for DNA expungement when an offense was redesignated as a misdemeanor under Proposition 47.
In a thorough and well-reasoned decision, our colleagues in In re J.C. concluded that Alejandro N. was superseded by the Legislature’s amendment of section 299, subdivision (f), which followed closely on the heels of the decision in Alejandro N. As amended by Assembly Bill No. 1492 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.) (Bill No. 1492), section 299, subdivision (f) now inserts section “1170.18” among the statutes that do not authorize a judge to relieve a person of the duty to provide a DNA sample. (In re J.C., supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1469, 1472.) The effect of this amendment was to “prohibit[] the expungement of a defendant’s DNA record when his or her felony offense is reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to section 1170.18.” (Id. at p. 1475.) The court also held that this amendment merely clarified, rather than changed, existing law, and hence could properly be applied to events that occurred before its effective date. (Id. at pp. 1475-1482.) Finally, the court concluded that Bill No. 1492 was not an improper amendment of Proposition 47, both because it clarified, rather than amended, Proposition 47 and because, even if it were treated as an amendment, it was not inconsistent with the intent of Proposition 47. (Id. at pp. 1482-1483.) The court thus concluded the trial court there had properly refused the minor’s request for expungement. (Id. at pp. 1467-1468.)
Our colleagues in Division Three have recently agreed with In re J.C.’s reasoning and concluded the juvenile court properly denied a DNA expungement request after reducing a felony to a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 47. (In re C.H. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1139, 1143-1152, review granted Nov. 16, 2016, S237762; In re C.B. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1112, 1117-1128, review granted Nov. 9, 2016, S237801; but see In re C.B. at pp. 1128-1138 (dis. opn. of Pollak, J.).)
We also agree with the reasoning of In re J.C. and will follow it here. The trial court properly denied Minor’s request to expunge his DNA from the state database.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.

 


_________________________
Rivera, J.


We concur:


_________________________
Reardon, Acting P.J.


_________________________
Streeter, J.


























People v. T.T. (A146294)