People arrested or convicted of crimes in California could have their criminal records automatically cleared under a proposed law announced Thursday by San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón and Assemblyman Phil Ting.
AB1076 would wipe out eligible convictions for people who have completed local sentences and eliminate many arrest records that have not resulted in convictions. Offenders already are eligible to petition the courts for the relief, but less then 20 percent take advantage of the program, said Ting, D-San Francisco.
Under the law, people convicted of offenses ranging from petty theft to more serious felonies that resulted in jail sentences — such as robbery or assault — could begin putting their criminal pasts behind them.
The groundbreaking clean-slate initiative would keep background-check agencies from accessing and disseminating cleared criminal records to employers and licensing boards. However, it would not remove the records from law enforcement databases.
Impressive. It took the writer until the ninth paragraph to drop in the usual bomb….Persons required to register as sex offenders not eligible.
I kept reading looking for the positive only to see “Registered sex offenders and sentences served in state prison would not be eligible for automatic clearance.” I knew it would be there.
So each time the legislature proposes a statute that would benefit others, they seem to propose at least one new law (if not a dozen) intended to persecute us.
Yes, soon we will be the only ones for whom any new laws are written …. all other crimes receiving almost no punishment, an absurdly minimal sentence and a nominal fine (for reference, see white-collar, rich white guy Manafort’s sentence of 47 months.)
So I have a 288 (a) and did no prison time. Jail (work release) and probation. Could anyone in the same boat with a 288 (a) have an equal protection claim?
RM is correct. As I noted, we have the most liberal Governor that has and will ever exist! If we want to push for anything, this is our chance. Get your charge reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to 17b and expunged now!
California Constitution, Article 1, Section 7(b): “A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.”
Clearly, if one set of convicts is being denied the same privileges or immunities, then the State of California is violating the civil rights of equal immunity as clearly protected in the California Constitution. The immuniies or privileges can be changes, but they cannot pick and chose who does or doesn’t get them as they’re all supposed to be granted upon the same terms to all citizens, or in our case, convicts.
From the article: “The groundbreaking clean-slate initiative would keep background-check agencies from accessing and disseminating cleared criminal records to employers and licensing boards. However, it would not remove the records from law enforcement databases.”
Isn’t this what the original registry was supposed to be like? With registrants being excluded, it reveals an embedded stigma that induced retributive actions such as this omission from such a way back into society. Everyone else who was convicted of a low level crime can clear their record except for sex offenders who also might be low level in crime.
Anyone who earns a 1203.4 is a low level crime. Yet, how are those convicted of sex crimes not referred to as probationers first? This is a huge pot hole that has been left unchecked and was already identified in 1958 under the Kelly v Municipal decision. PC 290 cannot supersede 1203.4 b/c both have exclusions as to who can or cannot qualify for 1203.4.
The legal system is retributive to those convicted of sex crimes as they’re ostracized from receiving any benefits of immunity or a pathway to become a part of society again. There is systemic proof as many other bills sought to help reduce sentences or the ilk have often excluded those with sex crimes. I thought justice was blind?
So I contacted Rep. Ting and I received a response from his office:
“I checked with our Capitol staff on your inquiry. According to them:
If a person is eligible for an expungement under 1203.4 then she/he would be eligible under the bill. The media reporting is in relation to SERIOUS sex offenses like rape and child sex abuse. Basically if you’re ineligible for probation, that means that your offense is serious enough not to be eligible for an expungement. If you’re eligible for probation and you’ve completed it, then you are eligible for the bill.”
He left the email open for me to reply back. So if there’s anything further I should ask, let me know. The messaging site only allows messages from residents in his district. Though I live in Contra Costa County, I used my old SF address to be able to send a message.
I am a little confused, as I believe many of us are when it comes to these laws. It is my understanding that if you served time in jail and not prison, your expungement is guaranteed if you have completed and not violated probation. So, this bill would clear your record automatically if you happen to not apply for the 1203.4. But, the 1203.4 does not relieve you of the duty to register, so I am assuming this new bill will have the same effect? The only difference is that your record is cleared automatically rather than applying for the 1203.4. Bottom line, the duty to register will still stand? All that is, IF sex offenses qualify, which they should since you can expunge some of them with the current law.
As others have noted here, there is no verbiage in AB 1076 relating to sex offenders being excluded from this bill. There are no specified offenses ( sex or non-sex offenses) listed that would benefit from this bill. Having read through it 3 times, it looks like anyone who has a misdemeanor sex offense conviction AND is/was eligible for a Certificate of Rehabilitation will automatically have their conviction dismissed unless the DA objects to it.
It is interesting to note that if this bill passes, it will be law on Jan 1st, 2021, which is the same time that the new tiered registry law is suppose to start. Maybe they don’t want to have to deal with all these people with misdemeanor sex convictions suddenly applying for relief. It is my understanding that a 1203.42 automatically relieves a registrant of their registration duty.
I may have missed something, trying to be optimistic, but this is what I glean.
Interesting article. I do recall (I don’t remember the year) the laws changed and prohibited certain registrants from filing either a 17B and pc1203.4! So, this must mean something. The argument for years has been, if your charge or plea has been expunged, why should you have to register? I would also argue (this would/I don’t even know why I’m mentioning this) if your charge is reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to 17B, that’s it! It’s a misdemeanor.
I just received a response via sex offender management board regarding 17B. There response:
I received your question regarding SB384. Unfortunately we are unable to provide you with the information you are requesting. You may want to consult with an attorney about your questions. I am also including a link to an FAQ on the Attorney General’s website that may provide you with additional information.
I also post legal questions via a website called: Avvo
Every attorney responded in our favor regarding 17B
Because of work and other obligations I will not be there for the hearing, however, I fax my letter to the chairman, called all the member’s offices and prayed.
AVVO.com
Avvo
You asked:
I plead to a wobble sexual battery pc 243.4 a 21 years ago. It’s a registerable offense!
Attorney answer:
It would be Tier 1, eligible after ten years… but you are eligible to terminate registration NOW through a Certificate of Rehabilitation. You have to file a petition with the court.
Cares, my plea: pc 243.4 A felony, 1 Year LA county/summary probation. Reduced per pc 17B and later expunged. It will be 23 years once SB 384 comes into play. I imagine this will overload the courts. The charged was reduced while still on probation, reinstated probation and I mailed the pc 1203.4 in. Granted.