In re Jorge C. CA4/1

DISCUSSION

Minor contends that the records relating to his prior dismissed petition should be

sealed under amended section 786, which became effective on January 1, 2016, after the

court terminated its jurisdiction over him. (Stats. 2015, ch. 368, § 1.) He relies on the

3 rule established by In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740 (Estrada), to argue that amended

section 786 may be retroactively applied to his case.3 We disagree.

We are guided by the well-established rule that a "new or amended statute applies

prospectively only, unless the Legislature clearly expresses an intent that it operate

retroactively." (People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 664; see Evangelatos v.

Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1188, 1207 [" '[it] is an established canon of

interpretation that statutes are not to be given a retrospective operation unless it is clearly

made to appear that such was the legislative intent' "].)

Furthermore, to ascertain the Legislature's intent, "[w]e must look to the statute's

words and give them their usual and ordinary meaning. [Citation.] The statute's plain

meaning controls the court's interpretation unless its words are…