Opinion
A169716
04-25-2024
TANYA LAVONNE RIGGS, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY; Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(Contra Costa County Super. Ct.)
THE COURT:[*]
Petitioner Tanya Lavonne Riggs challenges an order declining to rule on a Penal Code section 1203.4 (hereafter section 1203.4) petition in which she seeks to dismiss charges that resulted in a 1980s misdemeanor conviction for driving under the influence (DUI). (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a).) We conclude the superior court erred in failing to hear the matter. Accordingly, we shall issue a peremptory writ in the first instance directing the superior court to consider the section 1203.4 petition on its merits.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Petitioner was arrested by the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department on August 24, 1985 for felony DUI causing bodily injury. (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a).) Petitioner's rap sheet does not reflect a final disposition of the charges, and the records associated with the case, aside from the record of the arrest, have apparently been destroyed by the court.
Petitioner applied to U.S. Customs and Border Protection for "Global Entry" status to facilitate international travel. The application was denied because her 1980s felony DUI arrest was deemed to be a conviction of the charged offense in the absence of a record of the final disposition of the case.
Petitioner thereafter filed a section 1203.4 petition seeking to dismiss the DUI charge from 1985. In a declaration accompanying the petition, petitioner stated that she was initially charged with a felony violation of Vehicle Code section 23153, subdivision (a), but that her attorney successfully negotiated a plea to a misdemeanor violation of that statute. According to petitioner, she entered a plea of guilty or no contest to the misdemeanor charge in 1985 or 1986. In her declaration, petitioner states that she was "sentenced to SWAP time and a DUI education program as well as probation." Petitioner alleges she successfully completed probation without any violations. She claims to have no prior or subsequent arrests or convictions. Despite a diligent search of the court, the Department of Motor Vehicles, the Department of Justice, and the arresting agency, petitioner has been unable to secure a record of her conviction and the final disposition of the case. Petitioner also sought records from the office of her former attorney but was informed that they do not maintain files dating so far back in time. However, the attorney's office did have a record of having opened a case for petitioner on September 27, 1985, that was subsequently closed on June 3, 1986.
Petitioner's original section 1203.4 petition was returned by the court clerk with an indication that it could not be filed because it lacked a case number and a rap sheet. Petitioner's counsel subsequently appeared at the clerk's office in person and was informed that the petition would likely be rejected by the probation department because they could not prepare a report without a case number. The clerk reportedly told counsel that it did not appear petitioner had been prosecuted for the 1985 DUI and that a Penal Code section 851.91 motion seeking the sealing of arrest records when the arrest did not result in prosecution would be more appropriate and would allow the court to assign a case number. Counsel responded that petitioner could not truthfully assert facts supporting a Penal Code section 851.91 motion because she was, in fact, prosecuted for DUI.
The clerk's office eventually contacted petitioner's counsel and informed her that the probation department was unable to retrieve a case number or any other information about the case other than the rap sheet reflecting the arrest. The clerk's office again reportedly suggested the filing of a Penal Code section 851.91 motion. Following further discussions between petitioner's counsel and the clerk's office, the clerk reported that the judge told him she could not rule on the case because there was no conviction. Petitioner's counsel asked for a ruling in writing so she could seek relief in the Court of Appeal.
In an order dated December 14, 2023, the court declined to rule on the section 1203.4 petition, as follows: "Defendant has no conviction for the offense identified in the Penal Code 1203.4 petition filed November 16, 2023 regarding a case relating to Vehicle Code section 23153(a) on or around August 24, 1985. The Court cannot rule on the petition, as there is no case number and no conviction."
Petitioner filed a petition in this court seeking a writ of mandate directing the superior court to grant a hearing on her section 1203.4 petition. We asked the People to file a preliminary opposition and gave notice that we might issue a peremptory writ in the first instance. (See Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 177-180.) We also directed the People to address whether they have any record of the conviction or disposition of the case, whether respondent superior court has a duty to hear and determine the merits of the petition, and whether the court possesses power to grant relief.
The People reported that they were unable to locate any record of the conviction or disposition of the charges. The People also responded that "[i]t would appear that Respondent Superior Court could hear this matter and determine the issue on the merits." Finally, although the People did not take a position on whether relief should be granted, they agreed that it appears the superior court possesses power to grant the requested relief if the court finds it is in the "interest of justice."
DISCUSSION
Section 1203.4 generally permits a defendant who has been convicted of a crime and granted probation to seek expungement of the criminal charge after successfully completing a period of probation. The application of section 1203.4 is not at issue here. Rather, the issue is whether a defendant is entitled to a hearing on a section 1203.4 petition concerning criminal charges that continue to pose adverse consequences for the defendant when there is no longer a record of a conviction or disposition of the charges.
Section 1203.4, subdivision (a)(1) provides in relevant part as follows: "When a defendant has fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation, or has been discharged prior to the termination of the period of probation, or in any other case in which a court, in its discretion and the interest 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, if they are not then serving a sentence for an offense, on probation for an offense, or charged with the commission of an offense, be permitted by the court to withdraw their plea of guilty or plea of nolo contendere and enter a plea of not guilty; or, if they have been convicted after a plea of not guilty, the court shall set aside the verdict of guilty; and, in either case, the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant and except as noted below, the defendant shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which they have been convicted, except as provided in Section 13555 of the Vehicle Code."
"The law is well settled that a trial court is under a duty to hear and determine the merits of all matters properly before it which are within its jurisdiction and that mandate may be used to compel the performance of this duty." (Robinson v. Superior Court (1950) 35 Cal.2d 379, 383; see Meyer v. Superior Court (1966) 247 Cal.App.2d 133, 136.) "Any other rule would be unjust where the order disposing of the proceeding is nonappealable, because the aggrieved party would have no way of correcting the trial court's error and obtaining a decision on the merits." (Robinson v. Superior Court, supra, at p. 386.)
Here, the superior court declined to rule on the section 1203.4 petition because there was no case number or record of conviction maintained by the court. However, the lack of a case number or documentary record of the conviction does not deprive the superior court of jurisdiction over the matter. There is nothing to preclude the court from considering the substance of the section 1203.4 petition based upon the available evidence. Petitioner has presented documentary evidence that she was arrested for felony DUI. Further, she has averred that she entered a guilty or no contest plea to misdemeanor DUI and successfully served a term of probation. While the court is not required to accept these statements as true, petitioner is entitled to a ruling addressing the court's basis for rejecting or accepting petitioner's allegations. Further, the People should be afforded an opportunity to weigh in on the factual and legal basis for the petition.
Moreover, the lack of a case number or documentary record of the conviction or disposition of the charges does not necessarily preclude relief under section 1203.4. While section 1203.4 generally applies to a circumstance in which a defendant has successfully completed a term of probation, the statute authorizes a court to grant the relief available under that section "in any other case" in which, "in its discretion and [in] the interest of justice," relief is justified. (§ 1203.4, subd. (a).) As the People concede, the court possesses discretion to grant relief even in the case of a conviction for a DUI offense under Vehicle Code section 23153, notwithstanding a provision in section 1203.4 providing that relief under the statute is generally not available to someone charged with such an offense. (§ 1203.4, subds. (c)(1) &(c)(2); see Veh. Code, § 12810, subd. (b).) Thus, for example, the fact that a defendant has not successfully completed a term of probation is not dispositive. (People v. McLernon (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 569, 576-577.) "[I]n determining whether to grant relief under the discretionary provision, the trial court may consider any relevant information, including the defendant's post-probation conduct." (Id. at p. 577, italics added.)
Accordingly, we conclude the superior court erred in declining to consider and rule upon the section 1203.4 petition. We express no opinion regarding whether petitioner is entitled relief. It is up to the superior court in the first instance to consider whether the evidence presented by petitioner is credible and procedurally sufficient to support a section 1203.4 petition, and, if so, whether the interests of justice warrant relief.
We have reached our decision after notice to all parties that we might act by issuing a peremptory writ in the first instance and after considering the response from real party in interest. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc., supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 180.) Petitioner's right to relief is obvious and no purpose would reasonably be served by plenary consideration of this issue. (Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1241.)
DISPOSITION
Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing respondent superior court to vacate its order of December 14, 2023, declining to rule on the Penal Code section 1203.4 petition and instead to consider the petition on its merits. This decision shall be final in this court ten (10) days after filing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).)
[*] Humes, P. J., Banke, J., and Langhorne Wilson, J.