People v. Thompson CA2/6

Discussion Appellant contends that the trial court erred in assuming that the conviction for forcible rape was so heinous that it precluded the court from granting the petition as a matter of law. “Section 4852.13 gives the court discretion to decide whether a petitioner has demonstrated to the court’s satisfaction, ‘by his or her course of conduct his or her rehabilitation and . . . fitness to exercise all of the civil and political rights of citizenship.’ (§ 4852.13, subd. (a).)” (People v. Zeigler (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 638, 653.) Because the standards for determining whether rehabilitation has occurred are high, “there is no circumstance under which the statutory scheme requires or guarantees issuance of a certificate of rehabilitation by the superior court.” (People v. Ansell (2001) 25 Cal.4th 868, 887-888.) To prevail on appeal, must show that the trial court’s ruling was arbitrary, whimsical, or capricious. (People v. Zeigler, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at pp. 667-668.) Appellant’s rape conviction was not just any crime, “but one whose statistically significant odds of recidivism moved the Legislature to impose the lifetime registration requirement of section 290 on the theory…