In re T.M.

1
Filed 9/6/16 In re T.M. CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 THREE
In re T.M., a Person Coming Under the
Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
T.M.,
Defendant and Appellant.
A146216
(Contra Costa County
Super. Ct. No. J1400711,
JW-14-6168)
As in a recently decided related case, In re C.B. (Aug. 30, 2016, A146277)
__ Cal.App.4th __ [2016 Cal.App. Lexis 725], the appellant in this case, T.M. (minor),
appeals from a juvenile court order denying his request to expunge DNA samples from
the state’s DNA database after his felony offense was redesignated a misdemeanor
pursuant to Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, a measure that
reduced the classification of certain crimes. According to minor, his DNA samples
should be expunged because, had his offense been classified as a misdemeanor at the
time he admitted committing it, he would not have been required to submit the samples in
the first place. Following the same legal reasoning applied by this court in In re C.B., we
reject minor’s challenge and affirm the juvenile court’s order.

-- 1 of 5 --

2
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 11, 2014, an amended petition was filed in San Francisco County
Juvenile Court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging that minor
committed felony grand theft from the person of another in violation of Penal Code
section 487, subdivision (c).1 Following minor’s admission of the allegation in the
petition, the matter was transferred to Contra Costa County, where minor’s mother
resided, for disposition.2
On August 26, 2014, the juvenile court adjudged minor a ward of the court and
placed him on probation, subject to electronic monitoring for 120 days.
On June 23, 2015, minor filed a petition for relief under section 1170.18
requesting that his felony grand theft adjudication be redesignated as a misdemeanor, that
the maximum term of his confinement be recalculated, and that his DNA samples be
expunged from the state database.
On July 14, 2015, following a contested hearing, the juvenile court granted
minor’s requests to redesignate his offense as a misdemeanor and to reduce the maximum
term of his confinement to six months, but denied his request to expunge DNA samples.
On September 11, 2015, after his probation had been terminated successfully, his
wardship vacated and his court records sealed, minor filed a timely notice of appeal.3
DISCUSSION
Minor raises a single issue on appeal: Did the juvenile court misconstrue
Proposition 47 when finding he was not entitled to have his DNA samples expunged from
the state’s database after reclassifying his felony offense as a misdemeanor?4
1 Unless otherwise stated, all statutory citations herein are to the Penal Code.
2 The underlying facts of minor’s offense are not relevant to this appeal and, as
such, have been omitted.
3 Pursuant to the juvenile court’s order, minor’s arrest on the underlying offense
was deemed not to have occurred.
4 We grant minor’s request for judicial notice of the briefing, argument and the
juvenile court’s ruling in In re S.B, A145488, which documents were referenced and

-- 2 of 5 --

3
The standard of review is not in dispute: Questions regarding the proper
interpretation of a voter initiative, like those of statutory interpretation, are reviewed on
appeal de novo. (Evangelatos v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1188, 1212 [rules of
statutory interpretation apply to voter initiatives]; Argaman v. Ratan (1999) 73
Cal.App.4th 1173, 1176.) The fundamental rule of statutory construction or voter-
initiative construction is that we must ascertain the intent of the drafters so as to
effectuate the purpose of the law. (Preston v. State Bd. of Equalization (2001) 25 Cal.4th
197, 213.) “To determine the intent of legislation, we first consult the words themselves,
giving them their usual and ordinary meaning. [Citations.]” (DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc.
(1992) 2 Cal.4th 593, 601.) “We do not, however, consider the statutory language in
isolation; rather, we look to the entire substance of the statutes in order to determine their
scope and purposes. [Citation.] That is, we construe the words in question in context,
keeping in mind the statutes’ nature and obvious purposes. [Citation.] We must
harmonize the various parts of the enactments by considering them in the context of the
statutory frame work as a whole. [Citation.] If the statutory language is unambiguous,
then its plain meaning controls. If, however, the language supports more than one
reasonable construction, then we may look to extrinsic aids, including the ostensible
objects to be achieved and the legislative history.” (People v. Cole (2006) 38 Cal.4th
964, 975.)
In this case, minor contends proper interpretation of Proposition 47 requires trial
courts to expunge DNA samples submitted by criminal defendants (including juveniles)
once their offenses are reclassified from felony to misdemeanor pursuant to section
1170.18. Relying on a recent decision from the Court of Appeal, Fourth District,
Alejandro N. v. Superior Court (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1209 (pet. for rev. denied, Oct.
14, 2015) (Alejandro N.), minor reasons that the juvenile court erred by denying his
request to expunge his DNA record because, once his crime was reclassified as a
misdemeanor, it was no longer a “qualifying offense” for purposes of the administrative
relied upon by the lower court in reaching the challenged order. (Evidence Code, § 452,
subd. (d).)

-- 3 of 5 --

4
duty to submit DNA under the DNA and Forensic Identification Data Base and Data
Bank Act of 1998, section 295 et seq. (hereinafter, DNA Database Act). (See § 296,
subd. (a).)
We recently addressed and rejected this precise argument in In re C.B. (Aug. 30,
2016, A146277) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2016 Cal.App. Lexis 725]. In doing so, we
concluded a felony offense reclassified as a misdemeanor under section 1170.18 should
only be treated as a misdemeanor going forward from the time of reclassification and,
thus, remains a qualifying offense for purposes of the DNA Database Act, precluding the
offender from obtaining additional relief under section 1170.18 in the form of
expungement. Applying the legal reasoning fully set forth in In re C.B., we reach the
same conclusion herein and, thus, reject minor’s challenge.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court order denying minor’s petition to order the expungement of his
DNA samples is affirmed.
_________________________
Jenkins, J.
I concur:
_________________________
McGuiness, P. J.
In re T.M., A146216

-- 4 of 5 --

5
POLLAK, J., — I dissent for the reasons stated in my dissent in In re C.B. (Aug. 30,
2016, A146277) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2016 Cal.App. Lexis 725].
_________________________
Pollak, J.
In re T.M., A146216

-- 5 of 5 --