People v. Vieira CA5

DISCUSSION

The superior court has discretion whether to grant a petition for a certificate of rehabilitation. (See People v. Ansell (2001) 25 Cal.4th 868, 887 [the trial court’s decision “whether to grant relief based on the evidence is discretionary in nature”]; People v. Lockwood (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 222, 228 [“[s]ection 4852.13 … gives courts the express discretion to decide whether a petitioner has demonstrated [rehabilitation] to [the trial court’s] satisfaction”].) “The abuse of discretion standard is not a unified standard; the deference it calls for varies according to the aspect of a trial court’s ruling under review. The trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence, its conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, and its application of the law to the facts is reversible only if arbitrary and capricious.” (Haraguchi v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 706, 711–712, fns. omitted.) In this case, the superior court denied Vieira’s petition after concluding that he was not eligible for relief, a conclusion of law that we review de novo. (Cf. People v. Lopez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 1, 14 [denial of section 1172.6 petition by finding petitioner is…