Opinion
E067094
09-05-2017
In re L.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. L.S., Defendant and Appellant.
Heather L. Beugen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal and Minh U. Le, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. RIJ1501362) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Roger A. Luebs, Judge. Reversed with directions. Heather L. Beugen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal and Minh U. Le, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant L.S. (minor) appeals from the juvenile court's order sealing her juvenile records under Welfare and Institutions Code, section 786. Specifically, minor argues the juvenile court abused its discretion when it found that it would promote her successful reentry and rehabilitation to order the Moreno Valley Unified School District (MVUSD) to seal its records related to her arrest for marijuana possession, but declined to apply the order to the school districts to which she subsequently transferred. We conclude that the desired promotion of minor's successful reentry and rehabilitation would be frustrated if school districts to which minor subsequently transferred are not ordered to seal these records.
Section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code except where otherwise indicated.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
On December 2, 2015, the People filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging minor possessed not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana on school grounds. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (e).)
On January 20, 2016, the juvenile court granted minor informal probation under section 654.2.
On October 18, 2016, minor successfully completed probation. The court dismissed the petition and sealed minor's records pursuant to section 786. The court also ordered sealed minor's records regarding the incident in the possession of MVUSD, which is where she committed the offense named in the petition. The court denied minor's request to seal records regarding the incident in the possession of the school districts to which she subsequently transferred. The exchange took place as follows:
"[Minor's Counsel]: [T]his did occur in Moreno Valley at Moreno Valley Unified School District. So we'd ask that the school records be sealed especially given that she is so close to graduation. There have been no behavior problems. There is no concerns about drugs.
"THE COURT: Where does she attend school now?
"[Minor's Counsel]: She's now at Sierra High School in San Bernardino Unified School District. This occurred at Moreno Valley Unified.
"THE COURT: This was possession of marijuana at school?
"[Minor's Counsel]: Correct.
"THE COURT: Anything else?
"[Minor's Counsel]: Nothing else, your Honor.
"THE COURT: All right. This is one of those rare cases in which I'm going to order the Moreno Valley School district records with respect to this incident sealed.
"[Minor's Counsel]: Your Honor, I do believe that the school records would be passed on. She did go to Beaumont briefly and ended at Sierra. We'd ask all of those records be sealed.
"THE COURT: Well. I don't know that. I don't know what they have or don't have, but I'm just at this point going to seal the Moreno Valley school records and give them notice."
This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Minor argues the juvenile court abused its discretion when it declined to also order the school districts to which she transferred after MVUSD to seal her records regarding the arrest and petition. We agree. Once the court determined that sealing the records in the custody of MVUSD would promote minor's reentry and rehabilitation, it should have made the order apply to each school district in which minor subsequently attended school. Otherwise, the order regarding MVUSD would not effectively promote these goals.
The Legal Framework
Section 786, subdivision (e)(2), provides: "An individual who has a record that is eligible to be sealed under this section may ask the court to order the sealing of a record pertaining to the case that is in the custody of a public agency other than a law enforcement agency, the probation department, or the Department of Justice, and the court may grant the request and order that the public agency record be sealed if the court determines that sealing the additional record will promote the successful reentry and rehabilitation of the individual." (Italics added.)
We will apply the abuse of discretion standard to the issue of whether the court erred in denying minor's request pursuant to subdivision (e)(2) of section 786. (In re J.W. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 663, 668 [appellate court reviewed the trial court's denial of a petition under section 781 to seal juvenile records for abuse of discretion]; V.C. v. Superior Court (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1455, 1469, overruled on other grounds as stated in In re Greg F. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 393, 415 [appellate court reviews the trial court's decision to grant or deny a section 782 motion to dismiss a juvenile petition under the abuse of discretion standard].)
The purpose of sealing is to protect minors from future prejudice resulting from their juvenile records. (In re Jeffrey T. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1015, 1020.)
Application of the Law to This Case
Here, the juvenile court determined, in its discretion, that ordering MVUSD to seal its records of minor's arrest and the petition would promote her successful reentry and promotion. However, it declined to apply this order to school districts that minor subsequently attended because it did not know for sure whether these school districts had the records in their possession. This was an abuse of discretion for two reasons. First, as minor argues, the court was apparently unaware of Education Code section 49068, which requires the transfer of records upon a request by a minor's new school: "If a pupil transfers from one public school to another . . . within the state, the pupil's permanent record or a copy of it shall be transferred by the former public school . . . no later than 10 schooldays following the date the request is received from the public school . . . where the pupil intends to enroll." We acknowledge the People's point that this mandatory transfer requires the pupil's new school to first request the records, and neither the trial court nor this court can be sure that the subsequent school districts made such a request to MVUSD. However, we counter this with the second reason that the court's order was an abuse of discretion: given that the purpose of sealing is to protect minors from future prejudice resulting from their juvenile records, it was not necessary that the court know with certainty that the subsequent school districts had the records in their possession. As minor explains in her reply brief, what harm would have resulted had the court added the subsequent school districts to its form sealing order? "If the schools had the records, they were required to seal them. If they didn't have the records, they could have simply responded to the order by stating they didn't have any such records. The names of the two [school districts] could easily have been added to the sealing order by interlineation. [MVUSD] was written into the order. [Citation.] Notably, four empty boxes remain on the form sealing order," and the two subsequent school districts could easily have been added.
At the hearing on October 18, 2016, minor's counsel stated she currently attended Sierra High School in San Bernardino Unified School District and "[s]he did go to Beaumont briefly and ended at Sierra." The review memorandums filed July 19, 2016 and October 13, 2016, list "Beaumont" as minor's school district, but also show that she currently attends Sierra High School. Minor's opening brief states that after her arrest, minor "transferred to two high schools; first, to Indian Springs and then, to Sierra."
At an interim hearing held on July 20, 2016, minor told the court that she wants to become a Registered Nurse. --------
To conclude, given: (1) that the court found that sealing the records possessed by MVUSD would promote minor's reentry and rehabilitation; (2) the ease of including the additional school districts on the form order; (3) that it appears the juvenile court was unaware of Education Code section 49068; (4) the lack of harm had the additional school districts been included in the order but not possessed the records; and (5) the potential harm to minor from the failure to seal these additional records; the juvenile court abused its discretion when it declined to order minor's subsequent school districts to seal the records.
If the record shows that a trial court misunderstood the scope of its discretion, then we must remand for an informed exercise of the power. (People v. Fuhrman (1997) 16 Cal.4th 930, 944) We will do so based on the particular facts in this case.
DISPOSITION
The court's order is reversed insofar as it does not include each school district in which minor attended school subsequent to the incident involved in the petition. The matter is remanded with directions to: (1) clarify with minor which school districts she attended subsequent to MVUSD; and (2) order those school districts to seal any records in their possession pertaining to the incident involved in the petition.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J. We concur: MILLER
J. SLOUGH
J.