In re M.J.

Full title: In re M.J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE…

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

Date published: Oct 30, 2018

A146228 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2018)

Opinion

A146228

10-30-2018

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

Miller, J.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

/s/_________

Miller, J. We concur: /s/_________
Kline, P.J. /s/_________
Richman, J.