California trial court did not have jurisdiction to grant a certificate of rehabilitation for a person who had been convicted of a crime in a different state. In 1995, Faranso pleaded guilty to two counts of criminal sexual conduct in the second degree against a minor in Michigan State. He moved to California in 2001, and filed a petition for a certificate of rehabilitation and pardon in 2014. Over the People’s objection, the trial court granted the certificate of rehabilitation. The court denied the petition to pardon, recognizing that it could not grant that relief because the conviction was from another state. The People appealed. Held: Reversed. Penal Code section 4852.01 sets forth the eligibility requirements for filing a petition for certificate or rehabilitation and pardon. The statute permits a person convicted of a felony who has been released from a state prison or other state penal institution in California and who meets other specified requirements to file a petition. Subdivision (c), which addresses sex offenses, does not refer to convictions under any other state’s laws. Additionally, the certificate of rehabilitation procedure is a means of requesting a pardon and the California Governor may not issue a pardon to a person convicted of an out-of-state offense. The Court of Appeal concluded that such a person is also ineligible for a certificate of rehabilitation in California. The language and structure of the statute strongly suggest the Legislature did not intend to issue certificates of rehabilitation to persons convicted of crimes in other states, even if they now reside in California. Further, because Faranso did not first obtain a dismissal of the accusatory pleading pursuant to section 1203.4 and because he committed a sexual offense against a minor, Faranso did not meet the statutory criteria for a certificate of rehabilitation.