Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. S01-120769-5.
Sepulveda, J.
Defendant John Robert Pasto appeals following denial of his postjudgment motion to expunge his criminal conviction. (Pen. Code, § 1203.4.) Defendant’s appointed counsel on appeal reviewed the record of this case, did not identify any trial court errors, and asked this court for an independent review of the record to determine if any arguable issues exist for review on appeal. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442.) Defendant was advised that he could file a supplemental brief with this court raising any issues he wished to call to our attention, and defendant did not file a brief. We have reviewed the record and, finding no errors or arguable issues for review, affirm the judgment.
I. facts and procedural history
According to the probation officer’s report, defendant was an attorney who stole money from a client trust account. In October 2003, defendant was charged with three counts of felony grand theft of personal property. (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a).) In June 2004, defendant entered a plea of no contest to a single count of grand theft in exchange for dismissal of the other counts. In July 2004, the court granted probation for a term of three years with various conditions, including rendering community service and paying victim restitution and restitution fines.
In July 2007, the People filed a petition to revoke probation alleging that defendant, among other things, failed to complete his community service requirement and failed to pay victim restitution and restitution fines. In November 2007, defendant admitted the violation. The court reinstated probation, extended probation to November 2009, and ordered defendant to pay the previously ordered restitution by November 2008. The court also ordered defendant, who had resigned from the practice of law years earlier, to remove “signage that purports [defendant] as a lawyer.”
In July 2008, the People filed another petition to revoke probation alleging that defendant’s lawyer sign had not been removed and that defendant had not fully paid restitution. In September 2008, defendant admitted the violation and probation was reinstated. In January 2009, defendant provided proof of payment of the ordered victim restitution and asked for early termination of probation, which the court denied. (Pen. Code, § 1203.3.) In March 2009, defendant again moved for early termination of probation, and also asked the court to reduce his felony conviction to a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, §§ 17, subd. (b)(3), 1203.3.) The motion was denied without prejudice. Probation was completed on November 6, 2009.
In December 2009, defendant filed another motion to reduce his conviction from a felony to a misdemeanor and also moved to expunge his record of conviction. (Pen. Code, §§ 17, subd. (b)(3), 1203.4.) In February 2010, the court asked the probation department to prepare a report on the matter. A probation officer completed his report in August 2010 and recommended granting the motion. The probation report notes that defendant completed his community service requirement and paid victim restitution but also notes that defendant owes “a balance of $3,639.64 for fines and fees.”
In August 2010, the court granted defendant’s motion to reduce his felony conviction to a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, § 17, subd. (b)(3)) but denied (without prejudice) his motion to expunge the conviction (Pen. Code, § 1203.4). In denying expungement, the court observed that “there is a significant restitution fine that was never paid, and probation expired less than a year ago.” The court advised defendant that he “may resubmit [the motion for expungement] once the significant restitution fine balance has been paid.” Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal of the order denying expungement.
II. discussion
Neither appointed counsel nor defendant has identified any issue for our review. We have independently reviewed the entire record and find no errors or arguable issues for review. (Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.)
Penal Code section 1203.4, subdivision (a) provides in pertinent part: “In any case in which a defendant has fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation, or in any other case in which a court, in its discretion and the interests of justice, determines that a defendant should be granted the relief available under this section, the defendant shall, at any time after the termination of the period of probation, ... be permitted by the court to withdraw his or her... plea of nolo contendere and enter a plea of not guilty;... and, ... the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant and... he or she shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted.... ”
“The general purpose” of Penal Code section 1203.4 “is to relieve from further punishment, and restore rights to, one whose probation has resulted in his reformation.” (People v. Majado (1937) 22 Cal.App.2d 323, 325.) A defendant has not fulfilled a restitution condition of probation for purposes of section Penal Code section 1203.4 unless he or she has made all court-ordered payments for the entire period of probation and has paid his or her obligation in full. (People v. Covington (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1263, 1271; People v. Chandler (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 782, 789.) Here, defendant did not pay his restitution fine in full and did not demonstrate an inability to pay the fine. Therefore, defendant was not entitled as a matter of right to have his petition for an order of expungement granted. (Covington, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 1271; Chandler, supra, 203 Cal.App.3d at p. 789.) Nor did the court abuse its discretion in denying relief under its general power to expunge a conviction in the interest of justice given defendant’s admitted violations of probation and failure to fulfill all his restitution obligations.
III. disposition
The order is affirmed.
We concur: Ruvolo, P. J., Rivera, J.