In re Daniel T.

1
Filed 2/17/17 In re Daniel T. CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or
ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
In re DANIEL T., a Person Coming Under
the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DANIEL T.,
Defendant and Appellant.
A146352
(Contra Costa County
Super. Ct. No. J13-01134)
In 2013, Daniel T. (the minor) admitted one count of grand theft from a person
(Pen. Code,1 § 487, subd. (c)), a felony at that time. In connection with his admission,
the minor was required to submit a DNA sample to the state databank. (§ 296, subd.
(a)(1).)
After the electorate passed Proposition 47, which reduced certain crimes—
including theft of property valued at less than $950—to misdemeanors, the minor
petitioned to have his violation reduced to a misdemeanor, and to have his DNA record
1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

-- 1 of 6 --

2
expunged from the state database.2 The juvenile court reduced the minor’s violation to a
misdemeanor but denied his DNA expungement request.
The minor appeals, arguing that since misdemeanants are not required by law to
provide a DNA sample for the state database, his existing sample should be expunged
because he is no longer a felon. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In November 2014, the voters enacted Proposition 47. One of its provisions,
section 1170.18, makes certain theft related offenses, including theft of property under
$950, misdemeanors, and creates a procedure for individuals previously convicted of
felonies now considered misdemeanors to have those convictions reduced to
misdemeanors. (See People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1091.) In June
2015, the minor filed a petition to redesignate his felony grand theft violation to
misdemeanor petty theft pursuant to Proposition 47. (§§ 490.2, 1170.18.) The petition
also requested the minor’s DNA sample be removed from the state database.
In July 2015, the juvenile court redesignated the minor’s felony adjudication, but
denied the minor’s request for DNA expungement. Adopting its reasoning from In re
S.B.-W. (Super. Ct. Contra Costa County, 2015, No. J13–01068), the juvenile court
concluded Proposition 47 did not require expungement of the minor’s DNA.3
The minor timely appealed. A few weeks later, in October 2015, the Governor
signed Assembly Bill No. 1492 (2015–2016 Reg. Sess. (Bill No. 1492 or bill)) amending
section 299, which governs expungement of DNA records. The bill inserted a reference
to section 1170.18 into a list of statutes that do not authorize a judge to relieve a person
of the duty to provide a DNA sample. After the parties completed briefing, our
2 When the record of a person’s DNA sample is expunged, “his or her DNA
specimen and sample [is] destroyed and searchable database profile [is] expunged from
the databank program.” (§ 299, subd. (a).)
3 The parties in this matter agreed to be bound by the juvenile court’s ruling in In re S.B.-
W.; the juvenile court briefing in that case, as well as the transcript from the section
1170.18 hearing is included in the record on appeal in the instant case.

-- 2 of 6 --

3
colleagues in Division One affirmed the juvenile court’s denial of an identical DNA
expungement request. (In re J.C. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1467 (J.C.).)
DISCUSSION
The minor contends the court erred by failing to expunge his DNA from the state
database after reclassifying his felony adjudication to a misdemeanor pursuant to
Proposition 47. Relying on Alejandro N. v. Superior Court (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1209
(Alejandro N.), the minor claims the court was required to grant his DNA expungement
request, and that Bill No. 1492 does not preclude DNA expungement.
Under section 299, subdivision (a), a person can seek expungement of his or her
DNA record “if the person has no past or present offense or pending charge which
qualifies that person for inclusion within the [state databank] and there otherwise is no
legal basis for retaining the specimen or sample or searchable profile.” Section 299
identifies particular circumstances in which expungement may be sought, including when
the underlying conviction or disposition has been reversed and the case dismissed or
when the person is found factually innocent of the underlying offense. (§ 299,
subd. (b.).) At the time the minor sought expungement, section 299, subdivision (f)
provided: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including Sections 17, 1203.4,
and 1203.4a, a judge is not authorized to relieve a person of the separate administrative
duty to provide [a DNA sample] . . . if a person . . . was adjudicated a ward of the court
by a trier of fact of a qualifying offense as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 296, or
. . . pleads no contest to a qualifying offense as defined in subdivision (a) of Section
296.”
In Alejandro N., supra, 238 Cal.App.4th 1209, the Fourth District Court of Appeal
held a person whose felony offense has been redesignated as a misdemeanor under
Proposition 47 is entitled to expungement of his or her DNA record if there is no other
basis for retaining it. (Alejandro N., at pp. 1227, 1230.) The court reasoned “[t]he plain
language of section 1170.18, subdivision (k) reflects the voters intended [a] redesignated
misdemeanor offense should be treated exactly like any other misdemeanor offense,
except for firearm restrictions” and concluded, given their choice “to extend the benefits

-- 3 of 6 --

4
of Proposition 47 on a broad retroactive basis[,] . . . the voters likewise intended to
provide retroactive relief with regard to retention of already-secured DNA samples.”
(Alejandro N., supra, 238 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1227-1228.)
Two months after Alejandro N., supra, 238 Cal.App.4th 1209 was decided, Bill
No. 1492 was signed into law with an effective date of January 1, 2016. (Stats. 2015, ch.
487; J.C., supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 1471.) As relevant here, the bill amended section
299, subdivision (f) “by inserting ‘1170.18’ into the list of statutes that do not authorize a
judge to relieve a person of the duty to provide a DNA sample.” (J.C., at p. 1472.) Thus,
section 299, subdivision (f) now provides, “Notwithstanding any other law, including
Sections 17, 1170.18, 1203.4, and 1203.4a, a judge is not authorized to relieve a person
of the separate administrative duty to provide [a DNA sample] . . . if a person has been
found guilty or was adjudicated a ward of the court by a trier of fact of a qualifying
offense . . . .”
In a thorough and well-reasoned opinion, the J.C. court explained the relationship
between Proposition 47, DNA collection, and Bill No. 1492. (J.C., supra, 246
Cal.App.4th at pp. 1469-1472.) There, the court held Bill No. 1492 “prohibit[s] the
expungement of a defendant’s DNA record when his or her felony offense is reduced to a
misdemeanor pursuant to section 1170.18.” (J.C., supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 1475.)
J.C. further held “[b]ecause Bill No. 1492 clarifies, rather than changes, the meaning of
the relevant provisions of Proposition 47, the bill precludes the granting of requests for
expungement made prior to its enactment.” (J.C., supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1467-
1468.)
The J.C. court declined to address the validity of Alejandro N. in light of the fact
that “Bill No. 1492 requires the denial of the minor’s request for expungement.” (J.C.,
supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 1469.) Finally, the court found no inconsistency between
Proposition 47 and Bill No. 1492. (Id. at p. 1482.) In so holding, the court explained that
inasmuch as “Proposition 47 neither requires nor prohibits the expungement of DNA
records, Bill No. 1492 does not . . . amend the proposition.” (J.C., supra, 246
Cal.App.4th at p. 1482.) The court added that even if the bill could be treated as an

-- 4 of 6 --

5
amendment, rather than a clarification, “it would satisfy the proposition’s requirement
that any amendment be consistent with and further its intent.” (Ibid.) The court
concluded that because “Proposition 47 does not clearly either require or prohibit the
expungement . . . of previously provided DNA samples, there is no basis for finding the
prohibition of expungement in Bill No. 1492 to be inconsistent with the intent of the
proposition.” (J.C., supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 1483, fn. omitted.)
Recently, our colleagues in Division Three have adopted J.C.’s reasoning and
have concluded the juvenile court properly denied a DNA expungement request after
reducing a felony violation to a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 47. (See In re C.H.
(2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1139, 1143-1151, review granted Nov. 16, 2016, S237762; In re
C.B. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1112, 1117-1128, review granted Nov. 9, 2016, S237801; but
see C.B. at pp. 1128-1138 (dis. opn. of Pollak, J.); see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.1115(e) [cases pending on review may be cited for persuasive value].) We perceive no
distinction between this case and J.C. that would provide any basis for reaching a
different result here, and we therefore conclude that the juvenile court properly denied the
request for expungement.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s order denying the minor’s request for an order to expunge his
DNA records from the state database is affirmed.

-- 5 of 6 --

6
_________________________
REARDON, ACTING P. J.
We concur:
_________________________
RIVERA, J.
_________________________
STREETER, J.

-- 6 of 6 --