Monday, November 24, 2025
Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Unpaid Restitution Must Be Ignored in Expungement Request
Opinion Says Judge Erred in Giving Any Weight to Outstanding Debt Due to Victim, Who Was Injured in DUI Incident, in Denying Defendant’s Requests to Set Aside Verdict, Reduce Felony to Misdemeanor
By Kimber Cooley, associate editor
Div. Three of the First District Court of Appeal held Friday that a judge erred in taking into consideration unpaid restitution owed by a defendant, who pled no contest to driving under the influence relating to a 2020 injury collision, in denying the convict’s requests for expungement and to have her charge reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor.
Rejecting an assertion by prosecutors that language in the governing sections only precludes denials based solely on the defendant’s failure to pay, the court found that the provisions prohibit giving any weight to the status of the defendant’s restitution payments.
The expungement was requested under Penal Code §1203.4, which provides that a defendant who has fulfilled the conditions of probation “is entitled as a matter of right to have the plea or verdict changed to not guilty [and] to have the proceedings expunged from the record,” subject to certain exceptions. One such exemption applies to convictions for driving under the influence.
In such cases, a court may grant expungement relief “in its discretion and in the interest of judgment,” and subdivision (c)(3)(C) specifies that “an unpaid order of restitution or restitution fine shall not be grounds for denial of the petition for relief.”
Similarly, Penal Code §17(f) provides that “an unfulfilled order of restitution or a restitution fine shall not be grounds for denial of a request or application for reduction” of a charge from a felony to a misdemeanor.
Driving Under Influence
The question arose after Hayley Murphy was convicted, in July 2021, of driving under the influence of alcohol relating to a January 2020 Napa County incident in which she drove into a parked truck, damaging the vehicle and causing injuries to the victim, who was sitting in the driver’s seat at the time. Murphy was later found to have a blood alcohol content of more than 0.21%, well above the legal limit, and to have suffered a prior DUI conviction.
Napa Superior Court Judge Elia Ortiz sentenced her to 120 days in jail plus three years of probation. Imposition of the sentence was suspended, and Murphy was ordered to pay $78,558.62 plus interest in restitution to the victim.
In her plea agreement, the defendant acknowledged that her felony conviction would be ineligible for a later reduction to misdemeanor status
After successfully completing probation, Murphy petitioned the court to expunge her conviction under §1203.4 and reduce her felony conviction to a misdemeanor under §17. Napa Superior Court Judge Mark Boessenecker denied both requests on Dec. 9, noting that she had only paid $3,247.28 in restitution and had failed to complete an 18-month alcohol program in a timely manner.
Boessenecker said that she appeared “quite capable of getting employed and…making payments [on]…that probation restitution order” and commented that he might reconsider her requests in the future.
Justice Victor Rodríguez authored Friday’s opinion, reversing the order. The decision was joined in by Presiding Justice Alison M. Tucher and Justice Carin T. Fujisaki,
Statutory Interpretation
Rodríguez said the appeal raised a “matter of statutory interpretation” and wrote:
“We conclude the command of sections 1203.4(c)(3)(C) and 17(f) is clear and unambiguous. The provisions prohibit a trial court from relying on a defendant’s nonpayment of restitution or a restitution fine when denying their request for expungement or reduction….The statutes do not specially define ‘grounds,’ indicating the Legislature intended to give that term its plain and commonsense meaning.”
Noting that Black’s Law Dictionary defines “grounds” as a “reason or point that something (as a legal claim or argument) relies on for validity,” he opined:
“Thus, prohibiting unpaid restitution from being ‘grounds for denial’ means unpaid restitution cannot—in any way—be a basis for denying relief.”
The jurist continued:
“[T]he People insist sections 1203.4(c)(3)(C) and 17(f) simply prohibit trial courts from ‘solely’ relying on unpaid restitution to deny relief—that is, while ‘an unpaid restitution order shall not be the reason a court denies relief,’ nothing prohibits it from considering that fact when determining whether relief would be in the interest of justice. We are unpersuaded.”
Creative Reading
Saying that the attorneys with the Office of the Attorney General “fail[ed] to identify language supporting this creative reading,” he wrote:
“[T]heir interpretation would require us to insert the word ‘the’ into the statutes, i.e., an unfulfilled order of restitution ‘shall not be [the] grounds for denial.’…That addition would better conform the statute to the People’s construction—an unpaid restitution shall not be the specific or sole reason a court denies expungement or reduction of offense relief….[W]e decline the invitation to ‘rewrite the statute to conform to an assumed intention that does not appear in its language.’ ”
He added:
“[T]he legislative history of sections 1203.4(c)(3)(C) and 17(f) confirms that the purpose of, and the Legislature’s goal in enacting, those provisions was to preclude trial courts from relying on the fact of unpaid restitution to deny relief. Accepting the People’s reading—that courts may rely, so long as it is merely in part, on unpaid restitution to deny relief—violates the Legislature’s express intent.”
Addressing the prosecutorial office’s alternative assertion that any error was harmless, he said:
“The record here does not demonstrate ‘with unusual clarity that remand would be an idle act.’…The trial court repeatedly emphasized Murphy’s unpaid restitution as the primary factor for denying her relief. While the court made passing reference to her prior DUI conviction and delays in completing her alcohol program, it focused on the unpaid restitution, even suggesting it would reconsider its decision if she paid more restitution.”
The case is People v. Murphy, 2025 S.O.S. 3355.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company