In re Luis P. CA4/1

DISCUSSION

I. Former Section 786

Despite making certain concessions below, Minor still contends on appeal that his

first petition should have been sealed under former section 786. The People respond that

his first petition could not be sealed under former section 786 because the petition was

dismissed in 2013, prior to the statute's effective date. We agree with the People.

We are guided by the well-established rule that a "statute applies prospectively

only, unless the Legislature clearly expresses an intent that it operate retroactively."

3 (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 ambiguous. If the plain

language of a statute is…