Acuna

People v. Acuna

Good Law
2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 54·2000 Daily Journal DAR 1057·77 Cal. App. 4th 1056·92 Cal. Rptr. 2d 224·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 713
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 27, 2000B131760California1,545 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

Here we hold that a defendant who has been denied expungement of his conviction by an amendment to the Penal Code enacted after he pled guilty has not been subjected to an ex post facto law; nor does the application of the amendment violate section 3; nor has he been denied due process, equal protection or the benefit of his plea bargain. We affirm.

Facts

On February 26, 1993, Gilbert Adame Acuna pled guilty to one count of committing a lewd act upon a child under age 14 in violation of section 288, subdivision (a). Acuna was sentenced to 60 months’ probation on terms and conditions that included 365 days in county jail.

At the time of Acuna’s plea and sentencing, section 1203.4 allowed him to apply to the court after his probation ended to have his conviction expunged. In 1997 section 1203.4 was amended to prohibit expungement for convictions of violating section 288. (Stats. 1997, ch. 61, § 1.)

Acuna made a motion to have his conviction expunged in February of 1999. The trial court denied the motion based on the 1997 amendment to section 1203.4.

Discussion

I

Acuna contends the application of the amended statute to his case violates the constitutional ban on ex…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.