What is 1203.4 Relief?
Although the past cannot be completely erased, some relief from the disadvantages of a criminal conviction is available. Penal Code Section 1203.4 permits defendants,previously convicted of a probation or have been discharged early, to have their case dismissed and a plea of 'not guilty' replacing a guilty plea/verdict.
If the petition is granted, the person must be released from all disabilities resulting from the conviction. Perhaps the most significant benefit applies to futureapplications for employment in the private sector. By regulation, a private employercannot ask a job applicant about any misdemeanor dismissed under Penal Code 1203.4. (Cal.Code Regs 7287.4(d). Penal Code Section 1203.4a provides similar relief to persons convicted of a felony or misdemeanor, who have successfully completed their sentence.
Automatic Entitlement
If the person successfully completed probation (or had his or her probation terminated early), and is not then serving a sentence, on probation, or charged with any new offense, relief must be granted. People v. Hawley (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 247, 249. But, relief need not be granted when probation expired without successful completion. People v. Covington (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1263 (failure to make full restitution).
Persons convicted of a felony and sentenced to prison: If you were convicted of a felony and sentenced to prison (either initially or after having had your probation violated), you are not eligible for relief under Penal Code 1203.4.
Many sex related offenses: Penal Code 1203.4 relief is not available for violations of Penal Code 286(c), 288, 288a(c), 288.5, 289(j), or any felony conviction for a violation of 261.5(d).
The Bad News
A dismissed charge may still be pled and proved just like any other prior conviction in a subsequent prosecution. This means a prior DUI conviction will remain available for ten years to enhance the penalty for any subsequent DUI offense. SeePeople v. Diaz (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1424 (dismissed charge used as strike also under Three Strikes law).
A person who secures Penal Code 1203.4 relief must still disclose the conviction in response to any direct question contained in any questionnaire or application for public office or licensure by any state or local agency, or for contracting with the state lottery.
Dismissal does not make the conviction records unavailable to the public. People v. Field (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1778, 1787.
The Very Good News
Expunged conviction (dismissal) is inadmissible as impeaching evidence. People v. Mackey (App. 2 Dist. 1922) 58 Cal.App. 123, 208 P. 135. "Penalties and disabilities" in Section 1203.4 providing that defendant who fulfills conditions of probation shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense or crime of which he was convicted has reference to criminal penalties and disabilities or to matters of a criminal nature. Copeland v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (App. 2 Dist. 1966) 50 Cal.Rptr. 452, 241 Cal.App.2d 18 People v. Field (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1778 in which expunged felony convictions were held to be inadmissible for purposes of impeaching witnesses. (Id. at p. 1787.) See also, Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (f) (prior felonies usable for impeachment) do not have any effect because once a conviction has been expunged, it no longer is a viable conviction for impeachment purposes. By virtue of expungment, there no longer is a prior conviction. People v. Field (1995, Cal App 4th Dist) 31 Cal App 4th 1778, 37 Cal Rptr 2d 803, 1995 Cal App LEXIS 87, review denied (1995, Cal) 1995 Cal LEXIS 3255.
For information and forms, concerning expungements in California see, http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/other/crimlawclean.htm
Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/criminal-articles/california-law-benefits-of-expungement-2768731.html
About the AuthorI litigated a cutting edge First Amendment case for 7 of its 10 year lifespan. Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215 C.A.9 (Cal.),2005, Cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1128, 126 S.Ct. 2023, invalidated a statute on First Amendment grounds and overruled the California Supreme Court's unanimous decision in People v. Stanistreet, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 633.
Soon after Chaker v. Crogan, it was also used to strike down Nevada's analogous statute forcing the legislature to rewrite the law, but also nullified a similar Washington statute as well. (De La O v. Arnold-Williams, 2006 WL 2781278) and used as the backbone authority in Gibson v. City of Kirkland, 2009 WL 564703, *2+ (W.D.Wash. Mar 03, 2009). My case is a leading case on viewpoint discrimination.
In a recent case, Chaker v. Crogan was used to vindicate people who filed a complaint against police. Those people were arrested and charged with a law Chaker v. Crogan invalidated! They sued for being arrested and charged with an unconstitutional statute, Penal Code 148.6. The federal court denied the City's motion to dismiss and the case settled. See Cuadra v. City of South San Francisco, 2010 WL 55875, *1+ (N.D.Cal. Jan 04, 2010)
I love the fight and made cutting edge case law in the end. No doubt without the support of the ACLU (Ramona Ripston, Mark Rosenbaum, Peter Eliasberg, & Dan Tokaji) winning on appeal, and Joshua Rosenkranz www.orrick.com/lawyers/Bio.asp?ID=225990 assembling a small army of the best attorneys to defeat the California Attorney General's efforts to have the U.S. Supreme Court reverse the Ninth Circuit---this case would not have had a backbone to stand on.