Opinion
A160653
06-28-2021
In re E.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. E.L., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J16-01167
POLLAK, P. J.
E.L. (minor) appeals an order denying his petition to seal his juvenile record under Welfare and Institutions Code section 781. We find no abuse of discretion and shall affirm the order.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted.
Background
In December 2016, the Contra Costa County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition alleging that minor, then 15 years old, committed rape (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2)) and forcible oral copulation (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (c)(2)). Following contested jurisdictional and dispositional hearings, the court sustained the petition as to both offenses and ordered that minor be placed in a residential sexual offender treatment program.
In October 2017, minor was placed at the Oakendell residential treatment center. In June 2019, after his successful completion of the sexual offender treatment program, minor was placed with a foster family. Minor turned 18 in November 2019.
In December 2019, minor filed a motion requesting that the court terminate his wardship under section 778 and order his juvenile record sealed under section 781. The petition noted that minor consistently tested clean on random drug tests and that no probation violation or supplemental petition had been filed against him. He had “near perfect” school attendance and maintained a discipline-free record. Random searches of his cell phone by the probation department had produced nothing suspicious.
The juvenile court denied the motion without prejudice. The court acknowledged that “by all accounts [minor] seems to be performing well in the community” and had done well at the treatment facility. Minor, however, had been out of the residential facility for only six months and the court wanted to see “more of an established period of time where he is performing well in the community and performing well on his non-minor dependency” before termination of his wardship.
In May 2020, the probation department recommended termination of minor's wardship successfully. The probation department reported that minor “continues to do well in the community” and was “adjusting in a law abiding, safe manner.” Minor's random drug tests continued to be negative and searches of his cell phone revealed nothing suspicious. The report indicated that minor was set to graduate from high school and planned to move to New Mexico, having accepted a scholarship from the University of New Mexico. The probation department asked the court, pursuant to section 607.2, subdivision (b)(1), to modify its jurisdiction from delinquency jurisdiction to transition jurisdiction under section 450.
At a hearing on May 28, the court indicated its intent to terminate minor's wardship but denied without prejudice minor's renewed request to seal his record. The court explained that since leaving Oakendell, minor continued to “impress [the court] with how well [he has] been doing on probation, even in the face of some challenging things.” The juvenile did not think that minor needed “ongoing probation supervision” while studying at the University of New Mexico. The court noted, however, that it wanted to see how minor did in college, living in a less structured environment, before sealing his record. The court explained to minor, “While I have determined that you have done well on probation, I still want to see how you do. The non-minor dependency is going to continue. I will continue to see how you are doing. I want to see how you are doing in college, see if truly everything that we have talked about that you are executing that and that I will be convinced that you truly deserve and require a sealing. Meaning that I believe you have truly, truly been rehabilitated. [¶] I know that things are going to be somewhat different. You are on a great trajectory. You will be leaving a more structured environment and I think it will assist me in determining whether I should seal your record. So I'm just letting you know I'm not doing it today but I am going to reconsider it because I'm sure there will be another request....”
The minute order entered following the May 28 hearing indicates that the court denied minor's petition under section 781. The court did not enter an order terminating wardship until June 16, after it resolved outstanding issues regarding victim restitution.
Minor's notice of appeal was deemed timely filed by this court in December 2020.
Discussion
Section 781, subdivision (a) authorizes an eligible person to petition the juvenile court for the sealing of his or her juvenile court records. As relevant here, section 781, subdivision (a)(1)(D)(i) provides that “[a] petition to seal the record or records relating to an offense listed in subdivision (b) of Section 707 that was committed after attaining 14 years of age and resulted in the adjudication of wardship by the juvenile court may only be filed or considered by the court pursuant to this section” after the minor “has attained 18 years of age, and has completed any period of probation supervision related to that offense imposed by the court.”
“If, after hearing, the court finds that since the termination of jurisdiction..., the person has not been convicted of a felony or of any misdemeanor involving moral turpitude and that rehabilitation has been attained to the satisfaction of the court, it shall order all records, papers, and exhibits in the person's case in the custody of the juvenile court sealed, including the juvenile court record, minute book entries, and entries on dockets, and any other records relating to the case in the custody of the other agencies, entities, and officials as are named in the order. Once the court has ordered the person's records sealed, the proceedings in the case shall be deemed never to have occurred, and the person may properly reply accordingly to any inquiry about the events, the records of which are ordered sealed.” (§ 781, subd. (a)(1)(A).)
A juvenile court's decision to deny a petition for sealing is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. (In re J.W. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 663, 668.) In In re J.W., the court explained that “[a]n applicant... must make a showing sufficient to convince the court that criminal behavior is in the past and will not be repeated. This is a determination based on the totality of the circumstances and individual factors will inevitably vary.” (Id. at pp. 671-672.) Inthat case, the appellate court upheld the trial court's denial of a petition to seal juvenile records, noting that the petitioner's most recent crimes-attempted robbery and battery-were serious offenses, and that insufficient time had elapsed since he had committed those offenses. (Id. at pp. 667-668.) The trial court had not abused its discretion in determining that the petitioner was not yet rehabilitated. (Id. at p. 670.)
Similarly, here, minor's offenses were serious and, at the time of the denial in May 2020, minor had been out of the residential treatment facility for less than a year. More importantly, as the trial court explained, minor was facing a considerable change in his living arrangements. Living in college dorms away from the structure and supervision of his foster family was uncharted territory for minor. The court reasonably concluded that additional time was necessary to determine whether minor was rehabilitated “to the satisfaction of the court.” (§ 781, subd. (a)(1)(A).)
Contrary to minor's argument, the court's determination is not outside the spirit of the statute. “ ‘[T]he purpose of the juvenile justice system is “(1) to serve the ‘best interests' of the delinquent ward by providing care, treatment, and guidance to rehabilitate the ward and ‘enable him or her to be a law-abiding and productive member of his or her family and community,' and (2) to ‘provide for the protection and safety of the public....' ”' ” (In re Greg H. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 393, 417, citing § 202, subd. (b) [public safety is a consideration coequal to rehabilitation].) The purpose of the sealing statute is to protect minors from future prejudice resulting from their juvenile records. (In re Jeffrey T. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1015, 1020; see also Sen. Rules Com., Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, 3d reading analysis of Sen. Bill No. 312 (2017 Reg. Sess.) as amended May 26, 2017, pp. 6-7 [“Record sealing is a crucial rehabilitation tool for young people because it provides them with a ‘clean slate' to live as productive members of society.”].) While the amendment to section 781 in 2018 permits serious youthful offenders to petition for relief (Stats. 2017, ch. 679, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2018), it does not require the court to grant the petition until it is satisfied that the minor has been rehabilitated. The court's decision properly balances the relevant concerns.
The juvenile court's discretionary decision was authorized by law and was not arbitrary, capricious, patently absurd, or beyond the bounds of reason.
In light of this conclusion, we need not resolve the Attorney General's alternate argument that the court was without authority to rule on the motion to seal until after it terminated wardship on June 16.
Disposition
The order is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: STREETER, J., TUCHER, J.