Skip to content
Name: People v. Laird
Case #: D072642
Court: CA Supreme Court
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 08/30/2018

Proposition 64 does not require a defendant's DNA to be expunged from the state's database where defendant was initially charged with a felony. Laird was arrested for felony marijuana charges in May 2014, at which time he provided his DNA by buccal swab. He pleaded guilty to one felony count for possessing not more than eight ounces of concentrated cannabis (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (a)). While on probation, Laird filed a petition for reduction of his offense to a misdemeanor pursuant to Proposition 47, and the court granted the petition. In March 2017, Laird filed a petition…

View Full Summary
Name: In re C.H.
Case #: A146120
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 08/30/2016

Following redesignation of juvenile adjudication for felony offense to misdemeanor under Proposition 47 (Pen. Code, § 1170.18), offender was not entitled to have DNA samples expunged from state database. After Proposition 47 passed, C.H. filed a petition to have his 2011 felony grand theft adjudication redesignated as a misdemeanor. The court granted his petition. C.H. also moved to have the DNA sample he provided pursuant to Penal Code section 296.1 expunged because misdemeanants are not required to provide one. The court denied his request. He appealed. Held: Affirmed. Proposition 47 reduced a number of drug and theft offenses from felonies…

View Full Summary
Name: In re C.B.
Case #: A146277
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 08/30/2016

Following redesignation of juvenile adjudication for felony offense to misdemeanor under Proposition 47 (Pen. Code, § 1170.18), offender was not entitled to have DNA samples expunged from state database. After Proposition 47 passed, C.B. filed a petition to redesignate his juvenile adjudication for felony grand theft to a misdemeanor. The juvenile court granted the petition. He also moved to have the samples of his DNA collected as a result of that felony adjudication expunged because samples are not collected from misdemeanants and he was now a misdemeanant. The court denied the motion. He appealed. Held: Affirmed. Penal Code section 299…

View Full Summary
Name: In re J.C.
Case #: A146103
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 04/28/2016

Minor whose prior offense was reduced to a misdemeanor under Proposition 47 was not entitled to have the record of her DNA expunged. In 2012 the minor admitted an allegation of second degree burglary by shoplifting (Pen. Code, §§ 459/460), at that time a felony. After the passage of Proposition 47, the minor petitioned to have her offense reduced to a misdemeanor. She also requested that her DNA record be expunged from the state databank, because she would not have been required to provide the sample as a misdemeanant. The trial court reduced the offense to a misdemeanor but denied…

View Full Summary
Name: Haskell v. Harris
Case #: 10-15152
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 02/23/2012
Subsequent History: vacated and rehg. en banc granted

There is no Fourth Amendment violation by a statute authorizing the collection of DNA from arrestees, including those who are not ultimately convicted. Proposition 69, which passed in 2004, expanded DNA testing in California to include those adults arrested for a felony offense. The collection by buccal swabs is used to provide a DNA profile which is added to a nationwide Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). A group of plaintiffs who were arrested, but never convicted of felonies, brought a class-action against state officials. The action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 alleged violations of their Fourth Amendment rights to be…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Espana
Case #: G035423
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 02/14/2006

An offender's request to have his DNA samples removed from a data bank was properly denied in light of an amendment to the applicable Penal Code provisions. In an earlier appeal the court had remanded the defendant’s case with orders to strike the order for DNA testing because section 296 did not apply to the offense for which he was convicted. After the remand order, the legislation was changed so that the defendant was subject to its provisions, and the trial court refused to expunge the previous DNA results. The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding no ex…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Nancy C.
Case #: C048636
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 10/17/2005

The minor was convicted of auto theft in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, a "wobbler" offense. The court did not declare the offense to be either a felony or misdemeanor. Over the minor's objection, the court also ordered her to provide samples for the DNA data bank in accordance with Penal Code section 296. On appeal, the minor argued that the DNA order should be stayed pending the court's determination of the felony/misdemeanor status of her offense, because section 296 does not apply to misdemeanors. The Court of Appeal agreed and ordered that since remand…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Dial
Case #: A103896
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 07/23/2005

Appellant was convicted of theft related felonies. On appeal, he complained that the court improperly "ordered" him to provide DNA samples under Penal Code section 296. The appellate court found that his DNA Act challenge could not be reached in this appeal. An order under the DNA act is more akin to an advisement. The Act's requirements that certain persons give DNA samples are "self-executing" in that they are mandatory and arise without or without a trial court advisement or order. Further "rescinding" the order would not affect the validity of the judgment and sentence…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Coffey
Case #: A108693
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 05/24/2005
Subsequent History: rehrng. den. 6/16/05

A defendant convicted of a felony that is reduced to a misdemeanor at sentencing is not entitled to a return of DNA samples. The defendant here pled to a felony violation of Penal Code section 245(a)(1), and was required to provide a DNA sample pursuant to Penal Code section 296 (since amended). At sentencing, defendant’s conviction was reduced to a misdemeanor pursuant to his compliance with the terms of his plea agreement, and he later moved for return or destruction of the DNA samples. After the motion was twice denied he filed a third motion, this one entitled…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Stowell
Case #: S108187
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 12/01/2003
Subsequent History: None

Absent an objection in the trial court, a defendant forfeits the right to appeal any deficiency in the statutorily-required finding supporting an HIV order pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.1, subdivision (e)(6), and likewise forfeits any challenge to the failure to note those findings in the docket or minute order. Penal Code section 1202.1 requires a court that orders HIV testing in a Penal Code section 288 case to make an express finding of probable cause to believe that a bodily fluid capable of transmitting HIV has been transferred to the victim, and to note that finding in the…

View Full Summary