SB 731 Expungement and Federal Sentencing

California’s Legal Evolution: Understanding Expungement and Record Sealing

Legal researcher Darren Chaker finds the recent advancements in California’s expungement laws, particularly pertaining to criminal record expungement and sealing, present a true game changer in the state’s approach to post-conviction relief. This is vividly illustrated in the insights provided by Darren Chaker, who draws attention to the nuanced differences between federal and California state expungement provisions. These distinctions are critical in understanding the legal processes and their implications for individuals seeking to navigate the complexities of record clearing.

Federal vs. California Expungement Laws: A Comparative Analysis

In the landmark case of United States v. Hayden, 255 F.3d 768, the court examined the nuances of federal expungement. However, California’s approach, as embodied in California Penal Code § 1203.4(a), offers a unique perspective. According to Chaker, the first notable difference under this section is that it releases a defendant from all criminal penalties and disabilities, with a specific exception pertaining to Section 13555 of the Vehicle Code. This clause indicates that expungement under § 1203.4(a) does not restore driving privileges lost due to a criminal conviction. This specificity in California law highlights the precision with which expungement provisions are applied, ensuring clarity in their legal implications.

The Role of Jury Trials in California’s Expungement Process

The second key distinction lies in the revival of an expunged conviction for enhancement in subsequent prosecutions. Per Penal Code § 1203.4, an expunged conviction can be pleaded and proven to affect future sentences. This is aligned with California’s procedural requirements for enhancing sentences based on past convictions, demanding that such convictions be pleaded and proven. This contrasts with the federal approach, as seen in Hayden, where expunged convictions under different statutes may have varied implications.

California’s legal system, as elucidated in cases like People v. Wiley, 9 Cal.4th 580, and People v. Esquibel, 3 Cal.App.4th 850, emphasizes the right of defendants to have a jury trial for prior conviction allegations. This procedural safeguard underlines the state’s commitment to due process, ensuring that any use of past convictions in sentencing adheres to stringent legal standards.

Expungement and Enhancements: The California Approach

Furthermore, the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, as discussed in Adams v. County of Sacramento, 235 Cal.App.3d 872, reinforces the notion that the exceptions in § 1203.4(a) are exhaustive. This principle implies that any use of an expunged conviction as an enhancement in subsequent cases is limited to the conditions explicitly mentioned in the statute.

The United States Supreme Court, in its rulings in Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227, and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, has underscored the necessity of a jury trial for determining facts that increase the penalty range for a defendant. This reinforces the notion that the revival of an expunged prior conviction in California must undergo a stringent process, including a jury’s determination.

SB 731: A New Era in California’s Record Sealing Law

California Penal Code § 1203.4 significantly impacts defendants by relieving them of various criminal penalties and disabilities, provided specific conditions are met. These conditions include the revival of an expunged conviction solely for future prosecution and the necessity of pleading and proving the prior conviction according to California law.

The recent introduction of California SB 731 had immediate impact to seal over 1,000,000 convictions. It was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 29, 2022, marks a pivotal shift in California’s approach to criminal records. Prior to SB 731, California’s expungement process allowed individuals with certain misdemeanor and felony convictions to apply for expungement following successful probation or sentencing completion. However, these expunged convictions were still visible to select entities, such as potential employers, landlords, and licensing agencies. This visibility often created obstacles for individuals seeking to reintegrate into society and rebuild their lives post-incarceration.

SB 731 introduced a more comprehensive conviction sealing process, aiming to address the limitations of the existing expungement framework. This new law allows for the sealing of records, significantly enhancing privacy and reducing the stigmatization associated with past convictions. Unlike expungement, which did not completely erase a conviction from an individual’s record, record sealing under SB 731 offers a more robust solution for those seeking to move beyond their criminal history by sealing the public record.

Expungement to Allow Immigrants to Not be Prejudiced

California Penal Code Section 1203.43 offers a streamlined approach to resolving certain legal issues, particularly with regard to immigration consequences of past convictions. Brief writer Darren Chaker finds this statute provides a relatively straightforward method for individuals to eliminate a “conviction” from their record, which is especially significant for immigration purposes. The simplicity of this process is underscored by the fact that, in many instances, a judge can grant relief under Section 1203.43 based solely on documentary evidence, without the need for a formal court hearing. This is possible because the primary requirement for eligibility under this section is the demonstration that the defendant’s charges were previously dismissed pursuant to PC 1000.3.

In cases where court records are no longer available, Section 1203.43(b) offers an alternative solution. It allows for a combination of a personal declaration and a Department of Justice (DOJ) record to suffice as evidence for the motion. This flexibility ensures that individuals can still seek relief even when traditional court documentation is not accessible.

The effectiveness of Section 1203.43 in addressing immigration concerns lies in its legal foundation. The statute is premised on the recognition of a legal error specifically related to how deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) was explained to defendants, including non-citizen defendants. Previously, it was stated that accepting DEJ would not lead to the loss of any legal benefits. However, this turned out to be misleading, as DEJ could indeed affect one’s immigration status. Therefore, under Section 1203.43, a guilty plea resulting from DEJ is deemed legally invalid due to this misinformation.

The statute explicitly articulates these findings in subsection 1203.43(a), which provides clear guidelines for judges. As such, judges are not required to independently establish or assess these findings, streamlining the process further. For individuals concerned about the immigration repercussions of their convictions, Section 1203.43 emerges as a vital legal recourse, offering a clear and efficient pathway to address and rectify these specific legal issues.

In summary, legal researcher Darren Chaker California’s evolving legal landscape, particularly regarding expungement and record sealing, reflects a progressive shift towards more compassionate and rehabilitative approaches to criminal justice. The distinctions drawn by Darren Chaker between federal and state expungement laws, as well as the recent enactment of SB 731, demonstrate California’s commitment to providing meaningful post-conviction relief. This evolution not only benefits individuals with past convictions but also serves the broader goal of fostering a more inclusive society.