Federal and California Courts Define Expungement PC 1203.4
7 min read
California and federal court expungement definitions by Darren Chaker
Understanding the Legal Process: Expunging Your Record under Penal Code § 1203.4
In the intricate realm of legal nomenclature and procedures, the concept of expungement frequently arises, yet its nuances and ramifications can be somewhat confounding. Whether you are contemplating the pursuit of expungement under the auspices of Penal Code § 1203.4 or simply seeking elucidation regarding the intricacies of this procedural avenue, this treatise is poised to offer comprehensive guidance. With a discerning focus on legal precedent and statutory provisions, this discourse endeavors to navigate the labyrinthine landscape of expungement. Let us embark upon this exploration of expungement in the company of the erudite legal scholar, Darren Chaker.
What is Expungement?
Expungement, in the context of criminal law, refers to the process of clearing a person’s criminal record, essentially erasing their past convictions. This legal procedure aims to provide individuals with a fresh start, allowing them to move forward without the burden of a criminal record. While the concept of expungement is generally understood, the specifics can vary significantly from state to state. In California, Darren Chaker recommends getting the advice of an attorney in your area, or seeking advice of the Public Defender who offer post conviction relief. For example, see San Diego County Public Defender, Fresh Start Program.
California Penal Code § 1203.4 in Federal Court: The Set-Aside Provision is Not Expungement
In California, expungement is governed by Penal Code § 1203.4, also known as the set-aside provision. Recent legal cases and interpretations have shed light on the nature of this provision is inapplicable under federal sentencing guidelines since granting expungement does not eradicate the record. While expunge usually means “to erase or destroy” the record of a conviction from a criminal record, a § 1203.4 order does not erase, wipe out, or “expunge” the record of a prior criminal conviction for all purposes under California law. United States v. Hayden, 255 F.3d 768 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing People v. Frawley, 82 Cal.App.4th 784, 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 555 (2000)).
However, under federal law, in U.S. v. Hayden, 255 F.3d 768, 771 (9th Cir. 2001), the court stated in part, “Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.2 governs the calculation of a defendant’s criminal history, and states that, “Sentences for expunged convictions are not counted, but may be considered under § 4A1.3 (Adequacy of Criminal History Category).” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.2(j). ” The court continued, “To “expunge” is “to erase or [to] destroy,” and an “expungement of record” is “[t]he removal of a conviction (esp. for a first offense) from a person’s criminal record.”
Tellingly, in U.S. v. Tankersley, 269 F. Supp. 2d 1178, 1188 (D. Neb. 2003) the court found, “The purpose of a dismissal under § 1203.4 is to release a defendant from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offenses for which he has been found guilty. It was not intended to alleviate penalties, disabilities, or culpability for future offenses. ”
Hidalgo v. United States Case: Adopting Juvenile Expungement
Hidalgo v. United States noted that California courts consistently refer to Welfare and Institutions Code § 1772, the set-aside provision for juvenile offenders, “as a rule ‘expunging’ a prior conviction. [Citations omitted.]” 932 F.2d at 807. Hidalgo, held a conviction expunged for federal guidelines purposes under youthful offender act. The court concluded both the federal and California definition of “expunge” includes the set-aside language contained in California Welfare and Institutions Code § 1772(a). The Hidalgo case played a pivotal role in defining expungement under California law. It noted that California courts consistently refer to Welfare and Institutions Code § 1772, the set-aside provision for juvenile offenders, as a rule ‘expunging’ a prior conviction. This case concluded that both the federal and California definitions of “expunge” include the set-aside language contained in California Welfare and Institutions Code § 1772(a).
Legal researcher Darren Chaker further notes, California courts when discussing the set aside provision of section 1772 consistently refer to this statute as a rule “expunging” a prior conviction. See e.g., People v. Navarro,7 Cal.3d 248, 277-281, 102 Cal.Rptr. 137, 158-60, 497 P.2d 481, 502-04 (1972); People v. Jacob,174 Cal.App.3d 1166, 220 Cal.Rptr. 520 (1985). U.S. v. Hidalgo, 932 F.2d 805, 807 (9th Cir. 1991).
Relief from Penalties and Disabilities
The First Circuit has described California Penal Code § 1203.4 as a procedure that provides individuals with “relief from all penalties and disabilities resulting from [the defendant’s] conviction.” This legal provision aims to expunge the record of the crime entirely, leaving no formal record of a conviction. The First Circuit has described § 1203.4 as a procedure to obtain “relief from all penalties and disabilities resulting from [the defendant’s] conviction.” United States v. Cunha, 209 F.2d 326, 330 (1st Cir. 1954). In In re Paoli, 49 F.Supp. 128 (N.D.Cal. 1943), where the district court held: “The privileges provided for by the State in § 1203.4 … expunge the record of the crime, … for technically there is no-formal record remaining of a conviction.” Id. at 130.
Expungement and Immigration Implications
Expunging a conviction under § 1203.4 does not necessarily prevent proof of the bad act in immigration cases. In Paredes-Urrestarzau v. U.S. Immigration & Nat. Service, 36 F.3d 801 (9th Cir. 1994), the court held that “expunging” a conviction under § 1203.4 does not prevent proof of the bad act to determine moral character in a deportation case because: “‘conviction’ within the meaning of the INA [Immigration and Naturalization Act] is ‘a matter of federal immigration law, not a matter of state law.”’ Id. at 808.
In Carr v. Immigration & Nat. Service, 86 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 1996), the alien/defendant requested delay in deportation proceedings in order to “receive an expungement of his conviction under California Penal Code § 1203.4.” Id. at 950. The court held that the INS is entitled to treat different offenses differently, and to recognize expungement of some and not of others because the federal immigration service is not required to defer to state expungement definitions or regimes. Id. at 952.
The Ninth Circuit ruled that, in the context of immigration matters, a California DEJ disposition does not qualify as a conviction when the sole consequence in a specific case is an unconditionally suspended fine. The court’s rationale behind this decision was that no punitive measures or restrictions were imposed, thus failing to meet the definition of a conviction as outlined in INA § 101(a)(43), as discussed in Part A above (Retuta v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1181, 9th Cir. 2010).
While in most situations, the Retuta defense may not be necessary due to the availability of Pen C § 1203.43, it can still prove valuable in certain instances where a withdrawal of plea under § 1203.43 has not been obtained.
Record Clearance and Expungement
It’s important to note that while Section 1203.4 provides relief, it does not offer true expungement within the federal definition. Some California opinions-have described relief under this section as “record clearance.” People v. Lugas, 76 Cal.App.4th 696, 705, 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 11, (1999); People v. Fioretti, 54 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1212, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 367 (1997); People v. Daniels, 51 Cal.App.4th 520, 525, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 395 (1996)Unlike pursuing record sealing under Penal Code section 851.8, where a determination of factual innocence is made, and police must permanently seal and destroy all records after three years, Section 1203.4 focuses on providing relief from penalties and disabilities rather than complete erasure of records.
California does offer a form of expungement but in a statute which does not use the word “expungement” however does offer complete erasure of the criminal case. Unlike pursuing record sealing under Penal Code section 851.8 where a determination of factual innocence is made and police must permanently seal then destroy all records after three years, Section 1203.4 does not provide true expungement within the federal definition.
At its core, Section 851.8 empowers individuals arrested but never formally charged to petition for the destruction of their arrest records. This “certificate of factual innocence” acts as a legal eraser, clearing a person’s name from the official ledger of crime. A petitioner’s burden to establish factual innocence has been described as “ ‘incredibly high’ ” and as requiring “ ‘no doubt whatsoever.’ ” (People v. Esmaili (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1449, 1459, 153 Cal.Rptr.3d 625.)
Expungement is achieved under since the defendant was exonerated and all records are required to be destroyed. Penal Code § 851.8 (j) requires “Destruction of records of arrest pursuant to subdivision (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) shall be accomplished by permanent obliteration of all entries or notations upon the records pertaining to the arrest, and the record shall be prepared again so that it appears that the arrest never occurred.”
Conclusion on Federal and California Courts Interpretation of Expungement
In conclusion, Darren Chaker finds expungement under California Penal Code § 1203.4 is a legal process that allows individuals with prior convictions to obtain relief from penalties and disabilities resulting from their convictions. While it may not entirely erase the record, it offers a fresh start and the opportunity to move forward without the stigma of a criminal past.
For those seeking expungement, understanding the legal nuances and recent court decisions is essential. It’s crucial to consult with a qualified attorney who can guide you through the process and help you achieve the best possible outcome for your specific situation.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. How can I start the process of expunging my record under Penal Code § 1203.4?
To begin the process of expunging your record, you should consult with an experienced attorney who specializes in criminal defense and expungement cases. They will guide you through the necessary steps and ensure your petition is filed correctly.
2. What is the difference between expungement and record sealing?
Expungement focuses on providing relief from penalties and disabilities resulting from convictions, while record sealing involves the complete erasure and destruction of arrest records. The eligibility criteria and outcomes differ between the two processes.
3. Can expungement affect my immigration status?
Expungement may not help in evaluating your immigration status. It’s important to consult with an immigration attorney to understand the potential implications.
4. How long does the expungement process typically take?
The duration of the expungement process can vary depending on various factors, including the complexity of your case and the backlog of court proceedings. It’s advisable to consult with your attorney to get a more accurate estimate for your specific situation.
5. Is it possible to expunge all types of convictions under Penal Code § 1203.4?
While many convictions are eligible for expungement under Penal Code § 1203.4, there may be exceptions. Consulting with an attorney will help determine if your specific conviction qualifies for expungement.
