Filed 7/17/18 In re W.L. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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)
----
| In re W.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | C085259
|
|
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
W.L.,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
(Super. Ct. No. JV137110)
|
The minor W.L. admitted to two offenses alleged in two separate petitions, and the juvenile court ordered probation. After successfully completing probation, the minor moved to dismiss both petitions under Welfare and Institutions Code section 782[1] and to dismiss and seal one of them under section 786. The court denied the request concluding In re Jose S. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1107 (Jose S.) precluded relief. On appeal, the parties agree Jose S. is not applicable, and argue remand is required to allow the juvenile court to properly consider the motion. We reverse and remand the order of the juvenile court.
BACKGROUND
Two petitions were filed against the minor: a 2015 petition alleging three counts including an indecent exposure charge (Pen. Code, § 314.1); and a 2016 petition alleging robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). A resolution was reached on both petitions. As to the 2015 petition, the minor admitted indecent exposure and the remaining counts were dismissed. As to the 2016 petition, the minor admitted to robbery. The juvenile court ordered probation with conditions including 120 days in juvenile hall and 60 days of GPS monitoring. The minor subsequently admitted a probation violation, and the court revoked and reinstated probation.
Ten months later, the minor moved to dismiss both petitions pursuant to section 782. The hearing was initially continued. At the next hearing, the minor’s counsel asked that the 2015 petition be sealed pursuant to section 786 (in addition to the pending request for section 782 dismissal of both petitions). The People raised Jose S., supra, 12 Cal.App.5th 1107, and questioned whether the minor’s robbery offense rendered his entire juvenile record ineligible for sealing.[2]
The juvenile court continued the hearing to allow the minor’s counsel to address Jose S. It also terminated probation.
The juvenile court classified the next hearing as a hearing on both petitions pursuant to sections 782 and 786. Counsel for the minor argued Jose S. did not preclude sealing the 2015 petition under section 786 because Jose S. pertained only to section 781, and submitted on the section 782 motion. The People opposed sealing “in light of [In re Jose S.]” but did not discuss the propriety of dismissal pursuant to section 782. The court denied the motions to dismiss and seal,[3] explaining: “I do find at this time that [In re Jose S.], . . . does place this court in a bind and precludes . . . the parsing out [of] the petition.”
DISCUSSION
On appeal, the minor contends the juvenile court erred and remand is required because Jose S. does not preclude dismissal and sealing as otherwise permitted by sections 782 and 786. The People agree dismissal is not precluded by Jose S. and argue remand is appropriate to allow the court to exercise its discretion. We will reverse and remand.
Section 782 affords a juvenile court broad discretion to dismiss a delinquency petition where dismissal would serve the interests of justice and the welfare of the minor. (In re Greg F. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 393, 419.) Section 786, in turn, provides a streamlined dismissal and sealing process for minors who satisfactorily complete supervision or probation following a delinquency petition. (In re G.F. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1, 7.)
We agree with the parties that Jose S. does not preclude relief under sections 782 and 786. In Jose S., the minor petitioned under section 781 to seal one of several offenses in his record. (Jose S., supra, 12 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1111-1112.) The juvenile court concluded that because another of the minor’s offenses was for assault, his entire record was ineligible for sealing. (Id. at p. 1113.) The Court of Appeal affirmed. (Id. at p. 1121.) It reasoned that section 781 exempts from eligibility persons with offenses enumerated in section 707, subdivision (b): “ ‘[T]he court shall not order the person’s records sealed in any case in which the person has been found by the juvenile court to have committed an offense listed in subdivision (b) of Section 707 . . . .’ ”[4] (Jose S., at pp. 1114-1115, italics added.) The court concluded that “case” referred to the minor’s entire case, and thus the existence of an assault offense rendered all petitions in his case file ineligible for sealing under section 781. (Jose S., at pp. 1119-1121.)
Here, unlike in Jose S., section 781 is not at issue. One of the statutes at issue here, section 782, imposes no such exclusion. The other relevant statute, section 786, restricts a court from dismissing a petition and sealing its corresponding record only if that same petition is sustained based on a section 707 offense. Section 786 does not reference the “case” as does section 781. (See § 786, subd. (d).) Accordingly, the robbery (a § 707, subd. (b) offense, and the subject of the 2016 petition) is ineligible for sealing pursuant to section 786, but it does not also render the indecent exposure offense (the 2015 petition) ineligible. In concluding otherwise, the juvenile court erred. Further, as we explained ante, that court has not yet ruled on the section 782 motion as to the 2016 petition.
Accordingly, we will remand for the juvenile court to consider whether: (1) the 2016 petition should be dismissed under section 782; (2) the 2015 petition should be dismissed under section 782; and (3) the 2015 petition should be dismissed and sealed under section 786.
DISPOSITION
The order of the juvenile court denying the minor’s sections 782 and 786 motions is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. The dispositional order is affirmed in all other respects.
/s/
Duarte, J.
We concur:
/s/
Raye, P. J.
/s/
Butz, J.
[1] Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
[2] As we discuss in greater detail, post, Jose S. held that the minor’s violent felony offense rendered all offenses in his record ineligible for sealing under section 781.
[3] The juvenile court stated that the sections 782 and 786 motions were denied as to the 2015 petition, but did not orally rule on the section 782 motion as to the 2016 petition. The minute order is similarly ambiguous and indicates (incorrectly) that the section 786 motion was made as to both petitions. The minor does not seek sealing of his robbery offense pursuant to section 786 and, as we explain, that offense is not eligible for sealing in any event.
[4] In 2017, the Legislature eliminated the ban on sealing records containing a section 707, subdivision (b) offense committed by a minor 14 years of age or older. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 781, as amended by Stats. 2017, ch. 679, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2018; 1 California Juvenile Courts Practice and Procedure § 3.120 (2018).)
