Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 California opinions name it 1 courts 2014–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Tidwell CA6green2 sentences2016Recently, in People v. Tidwell (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 212 (Tidwell), this court held that dismissal of a felony conviction pursuant to section 1203.4 does not preclude a trial court from granting an application pursuant to section 1170.18, subdivision (f). ( Tidwell, supra, at p. 220 .) In Tidwell, this court noted that there are a number of limitations on the effect of a dismissal pursuant to section 1203.4. ( Tidwell, supra, at p. 217 .) For instance, section 1203.4, subdivision (a)(1) provides that “in any subsequent prosecution of the defendant for any other offense, the prior conviction m 2016Recently, in People v. Tidwell (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 212 (Tidwell), this court held that dismissal of a felony conviction pursuant to section 1203.4 does not preclude a trial court from granting an application pursuant to section 1170.18, subdivision (f). ( Tidwell, supra, at p. 220 .) In Tidwell, this court noted that there are a number of limitations on the effect of a dismissal pursuant to section 1203.4. ( Tidwell, supra, at p. 217 .) For instance, section 1203.4, subdivision (a)(1) provides that “in any subsequent prosecution of the defendant for any other offense, the prior conviction m | 1 | 3 |
People v. Mgebrovgreen2 sentences2017(See Mgebrov , supra , 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 595 , 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 778 [in case where relief granted as to some but not all felony counts under section 1203.4, court should have entered order dismissing those charges without dismissing remainder of accusatory pleading].) The trial court erred in concluding it was not authorized to rule on the merits of appellant's section 1203.4a petition in case number SCR22536. 2017(See Mgebrov , supra , 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 595 , 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 778 [in case where relief granted as to some but not all felony counts under section 1203.4, court should have entered order dismissing those charges without dismissing remainder of accusatory pleading].) The trial court erred in concluding it was not authorized to rule on the merits of appellant's section 1203.4a petition in case number SCR22536. | 1 | 2 |
Selby v. Department of Motor Vehiclesgreen2 sentences2016(People v. Field (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1778, 1787 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 803 ], quoting Selby v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 470, 473 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 36 ].) As such, it was error for the trial court to deny defendant’s applications pursuant to section 1170.18 on the ground that he already had obtained dismissals pursuant to section 1203.4. 2016(People v. Field (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1778, 1787 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 803 ], quoting Selby v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 470, 473 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 36 ].) As such, it was error for the trial court to deny defendant’s applications pursuant to section 1170.18 on the ground that he already had obtained dismissals pursuant to section 1203.4. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Fieldgreen2 sentences2016(People v. Field (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1778, 1787 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 803 ], quoting Selby v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 470, 473 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 36 ].) As such, it was error for the trial court to deny defendant’s applications pursuant to section 1170.18 on the ground that he already had obtained dismissals pursuant to section 1203.4. 2016(People v. Field (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1778, 1787 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 803 ], quoting Selby v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 470, 473 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 36 ].) As such, it was error for the trial court to deny defendant’s applications pursuant to section 1170.18 on the ground that he already had obtained dismissals pursuant to section 1203.4. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Davisgreen1 sentence2016(Id. at p. 36; see People v. Davis (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 127 [rejecting argument defendant on probation is entitled to an unconditional reduction of his felony conviction without petitioning for relief under 5 Moreover, nothing in the language of section 1170.18 indicates an otherwise eligible individual who has obtained a dismissal of his or her felony conviction under section 1203.4 is precluded from seeking reclassification of that conviction, which, as discussed, continues to carry potentially serious adverse consequences. | 1 | 1 |
The People v. Guillengreen1 sentence2014(See ibid.) It also has been held that dismissal of a felony conviction under section 1203.4 enables a defendant “to ‘truthfully represent to friends, acquaintances and private sector employers that he has no conviction.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Arata (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 778, 788 (Arata); but see People v. Holman (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1438, 1465 (Holman) [statement in Arata that probationer who obtains relief under section 1203.4 may truthfully represent he or she has no conviction is dictum and there is no direct holding to support it]; see also People v. Guillen (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 97 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Aratagreen1 sentence2014(See ibid.) It also has been held that dismissal of a felony conviction under section 1203.4 enables a defendant “to ‘truthfully represent to friends, acquaintances and private sector employers that he has no conviction.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Arata (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 778, 788 (Arata); but see People v. Holman (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1438, 1465 (Holman) [statement in Arata that probationer who obtains relief under section 1203.4 may truthfully represent he or she has no conviction is dictum and there is no direct holding to support it]; see also People v. Guillen (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 97 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Holmangreen1 sentence2014(See ibid.) It also has been held that dismissal of a felony conviction under section 1203.4 enables a defendant “to ‘truthfully represent to friends, acquaintances and private sector employers that he has no conviction.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Arata (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 778, 788 (Arata); but see People v. Holman (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1438, 1465 (Holman) [statement in Arata that probationer who obtains relief under section 1203.4 may truthfully represent he or she has no conviction is dictum and there is no direct holding to support it]; see also People v. Guillen (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 97 | 1 | 1 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.