(Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR29063)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jones, P.J.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Peter George White appeals contending the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to expunge a prior felony conviction. We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion but will modify the court's order in one minor respect.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On April 20, 1998, appellant and an accomplice entered a Kmart store in Santa Rosa, filled bags with merchandise, and then left the store without paying. When a security guard confronted appellant and his accomplice, appellant sprayed the guard with mace.
Based on these facts, in April 2000, appellant pleaded no contest to one count of second degree burglary. (Pen. Code,*fn1 §§ 459, 460, subd. (b).) The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation for three years.
In June 2002, the court found appellant had violated his probation by ingesting a controlled substances. The court reinstated probation on the condition, inter alia, that appellant complete a residential treatment program.
In March 2003, appellant's probation was revoked because he had failed to complete the residential treatment program. In April 2003, the court sentenced appellant to one year in the county jail with probation to terminate unsuccessfully upon completion of the term.
In approximately April 2007, appellant filed a motion under section 1203.4 to expunge his burglary conviction. The trial court denied the motion.
In March 2010, appellant filed a new motion to expunge. The motion was supported by letters from appellant and others who described the recent changes appellant had made. Appellant, who lived in Oregon, said he had given up drugs, begun working with retarded adults, and had returned to his Catholic faith. He implored the court to allow him to return to California with a "clean slate." Appellant's employer, a disabled Vietnam war veteran, praised appellant's work. One of appellants friends described appellant's reputation for integrity.
The probation department submitted a memorandum opposing appellant's motion. The memorandum detailed appellant's very poor prior performance on probation, and noted that appellant had continued to reoffend even after his probation was terminated. According to the memorandum, appellant was convicted of driving under the influence in Shasta County in 2004, and committed two counts of driving on a suspended license in Siskiyou County in 2007. ...