California Penal Code § 1203.4, commonly referred to as the “expungement” statute, states, in pertinent part, that:

“In any case in which a defendant has fulfilled the conditions of probation for the entire period of probation, or has been discharged prior to the termination of the period of probation, or in any other case in which a court, in its discretion and the interests of justice, determines that a defendant should be granted the relief available under this section, the defendant shall, at any time after the termination of the period of probation, if he or she is not then serving a sentence for any new offense, on probation for any offense, or charged with the commission of any offense, be permitted by the court to withdraw his or her plea of guilty or plea of nolo contendre and enter a plea of not guilty; or, if he or she has been convicted after a plea of not guilty, the court shall set aside the verdict of guilty; and, in either case, the court shall thereupon dismiss the accusations or information against the defendant and except as noted below, he or she shall thereafter be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense of which he or she has been convicted.... The order shall state, and the probationer shall be informed, that the order does not relieve him or her of the obligation to disclose the conviction in response to any direct question contained in any questionnaire or application for public office, for licensure by any state or local agency, or for contracting with the California State Lottery.” (Emphasis added.)

When relief is granted pursuant to this section, the person affected is to be relieved of “all penalties and disabilities” resulting from the offense, subject to certain narrow and specific exceptions.

There are only three narrow and specific disclosure exceptions that are set forth in the statute:

1. 1) any direct question contained in any questionnaire or application for public office;
2. 2) licensure by any state or local agency;
3. 3) contracting with the California State Lottery.

Parenthetically, this statute does not render a prior conviction a legal nullity. There are certain situations that will revive an “expunged” conviction, relating to the commission of a future crime. For example, there are certain cases in which a prior conviction is an element of a current charge, e.g., a second-offense DUI case. Relief under Penal Code § 1203.4 would not be a bar to a subsequent prosecution where proof of the prior conviction is an element of the current charge.

However, it is a well-settled proposition of law, and of statutory construction, that the legislature presumably means what it says, and that specific language is to be given preference over general language.¹

¹ “In interpreting a statute, we apply the usual rules of statutory construction. 'We begin with the fundamental rule that our primary task is to determine the lawmakers' intent. [Citation.] ... To determine intent, the court turns first to the words themselves for the answer. [Citations.] If the language is clear and unambiguous there is no need for construction, nor is it necessary to resort to indicia of the intent of the Legislature (in the case of a statute).... [Citation.]’ We give the language of the statute its usual, ordinary import and accord significance, if possible, to every word, phrase and sentence in pursuance of the legislative purpose. A construction making some words surplusage is to be avoided. The words of the statute must be construed in context, keeping in mind the statutory purpose.... Both the legislative history of the statute and the wider historical circumstances of its enactment may be considered in ascertaining the legislative inte nt.” (Kane v. Hurley (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 859, 862, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 809.)

Here, the legislature has decreed that a person granted 1203.4 relief is to be relieved of “all penalties and disabilities,” subject to three specific exceptions where disclosure is required. Certainly if the legislature desired more exceptions where disclosure was required, such as disclosure to any potential employer, it could have said so.

In fact, while court cases dealing with 1203.4 have acknowledged that this relief does not render the conviction a legal nullity, there is a fundamental understanding that the purpose of 1203.4 is to allow one to wipe his or her slate clean.

Cal. Penal Code § 1203.4 was enacted in 1941; case law interpreting this section dates back nearly that far. As early as 1943, decisional law recognized that the goal of this section was to place a person “in the position which he would have occupied as a citizen if no accusation had ever been presented against him.” ²

It has further been acknowledged by the courts that the “[c]lear intent of probation sections of the Penal Code and especially of this section, is to effect complete rehabilitation of those convicted of crime, and the record of one released is wiped clean, subject to reinstatement only when person commits another and subsequent crime or for purposes of certain exceptional situations.” ³ Disclosure to a potential employer, other than the specifically enumerated three areas, does not appear to be an “exceptional” situation.

Likewise, and more recently, courts have opined that “[a] grant of probation is, in effect, a bargain made by the People, through the Legislature and the courts, with the convicted individual, whereby the latter is in essence told that if he complies with the requirements of probation, he may become reinstated as a law-abiding member of society, & as an additional inducement, the removal of the blemish of a criminal record is held out through the statute allowing expungement of conviction following successful completion of probation.” <sup>4

2</sup> In re Ringnalda (1943) 48 F.Supp. 975. (Emphasis added.)
³ People v. Taylor (1960) 3 Cal.Rptr. 186, 178 Cal.App.2d 472. (Emphasis added.)
⁴ People v. Covington (2000) 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 852, 82 Cal.App.4th 1263 . (Emphasis added.)