In an opinion not much longer than the statute it’s interpreting, the Supreme Court today holds that, to have a misdemeanor conviction set aside, a person can meet the Penal Code section 1203.4a, subd. (a), requirement of showing they have “lived an honest and upright life” since the conviction “even if that person has been in custody since completing the sentence imposed for the misdemeanor.” The defendant in the case, People v. Maya, was taken into federal immigration custody after he completed his imprisonment for a DUI and drug possession.
The unanimous court is able to dispose of the case in a decision of just over five pages — written by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye — in part because the result is one the Attorney General concedes, which is contrary to the prosecution position in the superior court and the Court of Appeal. The court concludes that, “The possibility of expungement relief, and the benefits that come with it, may provide a powerful incentive for good behavior” while in custody.
The Attorney General did argue, however, the superior court nonetheless properly rejected the defendant’s request to vacate his conviction. The Supreme Court leaves it to the Court of Appeal on remand to resolve that issue.
Maya seemed to provide an opportunity for Justice Goodwin Liu to again write about how redemption can be proved by good conduct in custody. He recently discussed the topic at length in a different context when dissenting (with Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar) from the court’s declining to review a State Bar decision to not reinstate the license of an attorney who resigned from the Bar after being convicted of first degree murder. But there are no separate opinions today.
The court reverses a 2-1 decision by the Second District, Division Six. Not only is reading the opinion fast; so is the speed at which the court issued its decision. (See here.)
