Several pieces of new legislation were signed into law by Governor Brown earlier this month that might of interest here. Among them are a prohibition of asking for information about criminal records on employment applications (“ban the box”), as well as a possible discretionary shortening of the waiting period for a Certificate of Rehabilitation if the “interest of justice is being served”. Full Article / More Info
NOTE: 290 Registrants are excluded from a discretionary shortening of the waiting period for a Certificate of Rehabilitation. (added by Admin 10/28) 4852.22. Except in a case requiring registration pursuant to Section 290, a trial court hearing an application for a certificate of rehabilitation before the applicable period of rehabilitation has elapsed may grant the application if the court, in its discretion, believes relief serves the interests of justice. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0501-0550/sb_530_bill_20130909_enrolled.html
Janice, I am unclear about this:
“Penal Code 4852.22 will now permit a trial court to grant an application for a Certificate before the seven-year waiting period has expired if the court, in its discretion, has determined that the interests of justice are served.”
Does this mean that one would have to go to court first to get the determination that justice has been served? I don’t even want to think of the cost for that seeing as I have yet to be employed for over three years.
Thanks in advance for your time Janice.
Please interpret this ruling for us in CA.
So let’s get this straight, this law says the court can do that “in the interest of justice.” However, even if it is IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, the law says justice does not matter for registrants, registrants are not due any justice?! How can a law that specifically says that justice does not matter stand?!
Surely, when they blundered into that language, they crossed a legal line, whether outright constitutional or just a legal doctrine. I just can’t see how it can be constitutional to have a law that specifically says certain offenders (actually, FORMER offenders) may not have justice.
This attitude that registrants are not due any justice is nothing new, we have all been suffering dearly under it for a long time now; but until now, they have always been very careful about their language they could deny justice without ever saying so or acknowledging it. This law blatantly says registrants are not due justice. This is a first.
That language can be challenged. And it can also be exploited to scream about and point to whenever alleging unfair treatment of registrants — to undermine any assertion to the contrary. It could even be used to bolster arguments that other laws against registrants have a similar foundation of denying justice.
Well, no offense, but I was convicted or plead to a wobbler (not child related) about 18 years ago and I received SUMMARY PROBATION! I walked into the OC Courts and was literally shocked. OC doesn’t (it took place in LA) play fair. LIterally after 5 different court dates, the judge went through everything and stated that he couldn’t find one reason to deny the motion, but it just wasn’t enough? I had a clean record, obtained a graduate degree, married/children and ect ect. Its very difficult to obtain a Certificate of Rehab. Had the Judge granted my motion, I would be free from the Registration.
It’s a show. See, we are providing a way out for some people. Looks like my conviction excludes me out completely from a COR. Even though you look at my crime compared to all sex crimes and factor in my age and education, looks like my chances of commuting a sex crime are near the general population. And they are shortening the waiting period for other crimes which have a much higher recidivism rate. Is the captain at the helm here or is the ship now run by a bunch of drunk yahoos from steerage.
I have post-morten question: Did CARSOL know about SB 530 in advance and try to lobby to have the PC 290 exception language removed? Or did this bill sneak up on everyone?