Greg Hill & Associates Home
Award Recipient
Top 100 Trial Attorneys in the United States
Contact Us for a Free Consultation
West Covina DUI (VC 23152(b)) Conviction from 2009 Expunged
In 2011, our client entered into a no contest plea to a violation of Vehicle Code § 23152(b), also known as DUI with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.08% or higher by weight. This was a first-time DUI for our client, then 45 years old. In the underlying DUI, he had a 0.21% BAC. The plea was entered into at the West Covina Superior Court.
The terms of the plea bargain were that the judge placed our client on three years of summary probation on the following terms and conditions: payment of a court fine of $390, plus penalties and assessments (total owed was $1,808), and enrollment in and completion of the AB 1353 program. The public defender represented our client in this plea bargain.
Our client then complied with all terms and conditions of probation, which ended with the passage of three years on in 2014.
Due to pressing employment concerns in 2022, our client began searching online about expungement and called Greg Hill & Associates. He then spoke with Greg Hill and explained the underlying DUI conviction, as well as his employment situation. He had worked for 31 years within the information technology field and had a master’s degree from California State University Los Angeles in computer information systems, but he had recently become unemployed. He knew that he was less attractive to an employer with a conviction for DUI on his record. Being unemployed was a big source of anxiety for him because he was getting older (now age 56) and he knew employers probably wanted younger employees who could possibly stay with the employer for many years.
Greg first explained that expungement would not erase, remover or delete a conviction from one’s record, but it would return the last plea by defendant in a case to not guilty and the judge would then dismiss the complaint. More importantly, relief under Penal Code § 1203.4 would legally allow defendant to state he had not been convicted of DUI (which, however, he actually was).
Greg then explained that he suspected most employers hiring an information technology expert would be large companies that had five or more employees. Therefore, AB 1008, effective January 1, 2018, would apply, which modified Government Code § 12952 in terms of when an employer with five or more employees could consider an applicant’s criminal history before making a conditional offer of employment.
However, as the client knew, an employer certainly could consider an applicant’s criminal history and just not state that the decision to reject the applicant was based on a review of the person’s criminal history.
Greg also explained that a judge did have discretion under Penal Code § 1203.4(c)(2) whether to grant a petition for expungement of a DUI, something that most criminal defense attorneys did not know.
Greg explained, however, that he had only seen a judge exercise this discretion on a felony DUI with other exacerbating facts and had never seen this take place in a misdemeanor DUI, although judges in Northern California apparently did deny petitions for dismissal under 1203.4(a) (“expungement”) for misdemeanor DUI’s much more frequently.
The client responded by stating he had spoken to several criminal defense attorneys about expungement and none had told him these things. He then retained Greg Hill & Associates.
Our office then prepared the applicable judicial council form for a petition for dismissal under § 1203.4 and supplemented it with a short memorandum of points and authorities with a short declaration from our client. Attached to the declaration was a photo of our client with his family and his resume.
Our office then filed the petition in the West Covina Superior Court and served it on the District Attorney’s office. We also paid the $120 filing fee that is associated with this petition in Los Angeles County.
The terms of the plea bargain were that the judge placed our client on three years of summary probation on the following terms and conditions: payment of a court fine of $390, plus penalties and assessments (total owed was $1,808), and enrollment in and completion of the AB 1353 program. The public defender represented our client in this plea bargain.
Our client then complied with all terms and conditions of probation, which ended with the passage of three years on in 2014.
Due to pressing employment concerns in 2022, our client began searching online about expungement and called Greg Hill & Associates. He then spoke with Greg Hill and explained the underlying DUI conviction, as well as his employment situation. He had worked for 31 years within the information technology field and had a master’s degree from California State University Los Angeles in computer information systems, but he had recently become unemployed. He knew that he was less attractive to an employer with a conviction for DUI on his record. Being unemployed was a big source of anxiety for him because he was getting older (now age 56) and he knew employers probably wanted younger employees who could possibly stay with the employer for many years.
Greg first explained that expungement would not erase, remover or delete a conviction from one’s record, but it would return the last plea by defendant in a case to not guilty and the judge would then dismiss the complaint. More importantly, relief under Penal Code § 1203.4 would legally allow defendant to state he had not been convicted of DUI (which, however, he actually was).
Greg then explained that he suspected most employers hiring an information technology expert would be large companies that had five or more employees. Therefore, AB 1008, effective January 1, 2018, would apply, which modified Government Code § 12952 in terms of when an employer with five or more employees could consider an applicant’s criminal history before making a conditional offer of employment.
However, as the client knew, an employer certainly could consider an applicant’s criminal history and just not state that the decision to reject the applicant was based on a review of the person’s criminal history.
Greg also explained that a judge did have discretion under Penal Code § 1203.4(c)(2) whether to grant a petition for expungement of a DUI, something that most criminal defense attorneys did not know.
Greg explained, however, that he had only seen a judge exercise this discretion on a felony DUI with other exacerbating facts and had never seen this take place in a misdemeanor DUI, although judges in Northern California apparently did deny petitions for dismissal under 1203.4(a) (“expungement”) for misdemeanor DUI’s much more frequently.
The client responded by stating he had spoken to several criminal defense attorneys about expungement and none had told him these things. He then retained Greg Hill & Associates.
Our office then prepared the applicable judicial council form for a petition for dismissal under § 1203.4 and supplemented it with a short memorandum of points and authorities with a short declaration from our client. Attached to the declaration was a photo of our client with his family and his resume.
Our office then filed the petition in the West Covina Superior Court and served it on the District Attorney’s office. We also paid the $120 filing fee that is associated with this petition in Los Angeles County.
The court clerk then set a hearing on the motion and Greg Hill appeared on the client’s behalf at the hearing. The judge granted the petition. The client was relieved and quite happy with this result.
For more information about the expungement issues in this summary, please click on the following articles:
