In re T.H.

1
Filed 9/21/16 In re T.H. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.H., a Person Coming Under the
Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
T.H.,
Defendant and Appellant.
A146129
(Contra Costa County
Super. Ct. No. J1301357)
As in a recent case decided by this court, In re C.B. (Aug. 30, 2016, A146277)
__ Cal.App.4th __ [2016 Cal.App. Lexis 725], appellant T.H. (minor) challenges 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.1 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.
1All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.

-- 1 of 5 --

2
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In December 2013, the District Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco
filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging that minor
committed second degree robbery.2 (§ 212.5, subd. (c)) The juvenile court granted a
motion allowing the district attorney to amend the petition to allege that minor committed
felony grand theft (§ 487, subd. (c)) and misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon
(§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). Minor admitted the allegations of the amended petition. The matter
was then transferred to minor’s home county, Contra Costa County, for disposition.
In January 2014, the juvenile court adjudged minor a ward of the court and placed
him on electronic monitoring for 180 days. The court ordered minor to submit to the
collection of a DNA sample pursuant to section 296.1.
In June 2015, minor filed a petition pursuant to Proposition 47 requesting his
felony grand theft adjudication be redesignated as a misdemeanor and that his DNA
sample be expunged from the state database. Following a hearing, the juvenile court
granted minor’s request to redesignate his offense as a misdemeanor and, thus,
recalculated his maximum confinement time, but denied his expungement request. After
minor’s request for reconsideration was denied, he filed a timely notice of appeal.
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?
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 is that we must
2Because the details of minor’s offenses are not relevant to the issues raised on
appeal, we limit our recitation of the facts to the procedural history of this matter.

-- 2 of 5 --

3
ascertain the intent of the Legislature 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.” (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)
whose offenses are reclassified from felony to misdemeanor pursuant to section 1170.18.
Relying on a recent decision from Division One of the Fourth District Court of Appeal,
Alejandro N. v. Superior Court (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1209 (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 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).)
This court recently addressed and rejected this precise argument in In re C.B.,
A146277, filed August 30, 2016. 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

-- 3 of 5 --

4
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.
_________________________
McGuiness, P.J.
I concur:
_________________________
Jenkins, J.

-- 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.

-- 5 of 5 --