California Law & Benefits of Expungement
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
Questions and Answers
Miranda v. Clark County seems like a case out of the south during the 1940's. No justice expected or received. However, the Clark County Public Defender's decision to abandon its client resulted in a man spending decades on death row for a crime he didn't commit. This article provides some foundation and discussion on the right to counsel, that is competent counsel.
The right to discharge counsel and proceed on your own is an absolute right. This article will cite a few key cases and a couple of scenarios where the right is often invoked. Darren Chaker
Although not always advisable, the right to testify in trial is absolute. This brief article will focus on a few issues concerning the right to testify and my own thoughts why invoking the right may not be advisable.
Since prevailing in a major First Amendment case, Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215, 1223 (9th Cir. 2005), which overruled the California Supreme Court, I have replied to a few questions concerning people who want to sue a neighbor or ex-friend who posted material online which that person took offense to. When it comes to online speech, be careful, free speech is broad and sanctions for suing someone can be costly.
Article is focused on issues seen in court on a dailey basis. Too often, Defendants all they don't like there attorney, or the attorney doesn't want to go to trial in the manner the Defendant wants to, thus Defendant will lose at trial. Defendant really want choice counsel or counsel who believes in him. The below article goes through the basics of conflict and what standard the court evaluates such a claim on. Darren Chaker
The California Supreme Court issued an opinion allowing police to read text messages on a phone of a person they arrested. People v. Diaz is a run of the mill drug dealing, however allowing police to review text messages will likely be heard later on by a federal court due to Fourth Amendment implications. Nonetheless, this article provides some basic insight on the court opinion, and counter measures to keep private information--private.
Before we can answer the question of the role of Alcoholics Anonymous in restoring drivers licenses, it's helpful first to briefly review the Michigan drivers license restoration process and what you must prove.
In many cases, especially when the crime is publicly scorned (i.e. DUI, domestic violence, animal cruelty, sex offenses) yet a bona-fide defense exists, one should consider waiving a jury trial. The case is then tried to only the judge. This can make it easier to focus the case on evidence and argument that matters most toward a not guilty verdict, rather than spending a lot of time and effort persuading twelve jurors to put aside their biases.
When someone moves into an assisted living center, that person is likely not doing so with much in the way of excitement or happiness.
The Criminal lawyers Ottawa have special skills to fight out both simple and complicated cases and help you the best legal justice ever.
A professional criminal attorney in Los Angeles can surely get your name off the list of criminals in the city if you really are innocent. It does not actually matter if you go for a professional Los Angeles criminal attorney that charges lower or higher compared to others.
Spoilation of elcectronic evidence can take many forms and result of case dismissal, to a fine. Depending on the amount of notice provide, opportunity to comply with preservatation orders or expectations, Darren Chaker notes courts have grown increasingly hostile toward the party who destroys precious data.
The California Supreme Court issued an opinion allowing police to read text messages on a phone of a person they arrested. People v. Diaz is a run of the mill drug dealing, however allowing police to review text messages will likely be heard later on by a federal court due to Fourth Amendment implications. Nonetheless, this article provides some basic insight on the court opinion, and counter measures to keep private information--private.
Background: A defendant is sentenced to not violate any laws, pay a fine, etc., however the probation officer adds the additional restriction to not leave the state absent written consent by the probation officer. To do otherwise is to violate probation in the eyes of the probation officer. The court took issue with the probation officer's decision. Enjoy, Darren Chaker
Background: A Defendant was charged with making harassing phone calls. After years of litigation, the State admitted it had no evidence Defendant made a single call. Defendant filed a petition to seal and destroy records pursuant to Penal Code Section 851.8. The Defendant now become the Petitioner and must prove factual innocence. In short, a prime method of proving factual innocence is demonstrating it by cutting away at the elements of the crime to prove a crime was not committed.
Miranda v. Clark County seems like a case out of the south during the 1940's. No justice expected or received. However, the Clark County Public Defender's decision to abandon its client resulted in a man spending decades on death row for a crime he didn't commit. This article provides some foundation and discussion on the right to counsel, that is competent counsel.
