1

Filed 8/3/23 

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

In re A.B., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 

 A165499

 

 (Contra Costa County

 Super Ct. No. J09-01517)

The juvenile court granted a petition to seal A.B.’s juvenile 

records and ordered five government agencies to seal any records 

in their custody. A few months later, A.B. petitioned to seal 

additional records in the possession of agencies not subject to the 

initial sealing order. Although the petition was unopposed, the 

juvenile court denied it, ruling that it lacked authority to seal 

additional records after granting the original petition. A.B. 

appeals from the latter order. We agree with A.B. and the People 

(who concede the issue) that the juvenile court misconstrued 

Welfare and Institutions Code section 781.1 The statute allows a 

court to grant a petition to seal documents not addressed in an 

earlier petition. Accordingly, we reverse and remand. 

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code.
2

BACKGROUND

A.

“Section 781 provides for a noticed petition procedure for 

sealing a person’s juvenile court records and related records in 

the custody of the probation department, law enforcement 

agencies, and other agencies.” (In re O.C. (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 

1196, 1204; accord, § 781, subd. (a)(1)(A).) To obtain relief, the 

petition “is required to show that, since the juvenile court’s 

jurisdiction was terminated . . . , the person was not convicted of 

a felony or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, and the 

person has attained rehabilitation to the satisfaction of the 

court.” (In re O.C., at p. 1200.) Once the juvenile records are 

sealed, “the proceedings in the case shall be deemed never to 

have occurred.” (§ 781, subd. (a)(1)(A); S.V. v. Superior Court

(2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1174, 1181.)

B.

In 2009, when A.B. was 13 years old, the Contra Costa 

County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition 

(§ 602, subd. (a)) against him. A.B. pled no contest to two 

charges, was declared a ward of the juvenile court, and was 

placed on probation. The juvenile court successfully terminated 

his probation and wardship in 2014. 

Almost eight years later, A.B. and the Contra Costa County 

Probation Department petitioned to have his juvenile court and 

public agency records sealed, pursuant to section 781. In support 

of his request, A.B. stated that, since his juvenile adjudication, he 

had not sustained any criminal convictions; had married and 

produced a child; and had remained steadily employed in the 

information technology sector. The People did not oppose the 

petition. 

In January 2022, the juvenile court granted the petition, 

finding that A.B. had been rehabilitated “and seems to be 
3

thriving in his life.” The court also found that A.B.’s offenses 

were not listed in section 707, subdivision (b). (See § 781, subd. 

(a)(1)(D).) In addition to sealing its own records, the court 

ordered the five government agencies listed in the petition to seal 

and ultimately destroy any of A.B.’s juvenile records in their 

custody. 

About three months after the sealing order was entered, 

A.B. discovered that several public agencies not subject to the 

original sealing order had retained and were able to access his 

juvenile records. 

A.B. petitioned to seal these additional agency records, 

pursuant to section 781. Again, the People did not oppose the 

petition. After a hearing, the juvenile court denied A.B.’s 

supplemental petition, concluding that it lacked the authority to 

seal additional records after the initial sealing order was entered 

in January 2022. 

The juvenile court agreed that, had the additional agencies 

been listed in A.B.’s first petition, they would have been ordered 

to seal their records. But it denied the second petition, 

explaining: “I think it’s truly an issue of timing. . . . [B]ecause 

[A.B.’s juvenile] records are in fact sealed at this time, I have no 

access except under very limited circumstances that do not 

pertain here to access the records, so I don’t believe I have the 

ability to seal further records after a sealing order has been 

issued. . . . [¶] . . . I do think this is an issue of once records are 

ordered sealed, except under extremely limited purposes, the 

Court has no access to do anything further after the sealing has 

occurred.” 

DISCUSSION

A.

A.B. maintains, and the People concede, that the juvenile 

court erred by concluding it lacked authority to seal records from 
4

additional agencies after entry of the initial sealing order. We 

agree.

1.

We generally review a juvenile court’s ruling on the sealing 

of juvenile records for abuse of discretion. (In re Jeffrey T. (2006) 

140 Cal.App.4th 1015, 1018.) Here, however, our review is de 

novo because this case involves a question of statutory 

interpretation. (Ibid.)

We apply the familiar rules of statutory interpretation. 

Our central task is to effectuate the law’s purpose, as intended by 

the Legislature. We focus initially on the language of the statute, 

being careful to harmonize its terms in the context of the 

statutory framework as a whole. We avoid constructions that 

would produce absurd outcomes, which we assume the 

Legislature did not intend. (In re Greg F. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 393, 

406.) The plain meaning of the language controls our analysis 

unless it is ambiguous, in which case we consider extrinsic aids 

such as the legislative history, the evils to be remedied, and 

public policy. (People v. Garcia (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1166, 1172.)

Section 781, subdivision (a)(1)(A), provides (in relevant 

part): “[I]n any case at any time after the person has reached 18 

years of age, [the person or the county probation officer may] 

petition the court for sealing of the records, including records of 

arrest, relating to the person’s case, in the custody of the juvenile 

court and probation officer and any other agencies, including law 

enforcement agencies, entities, and public officials as the 

petitioner alleges, in the petition, to have custody of the records. 

. . . If, after hearing, the court finds that since the termination of 

jurisdiction . . . the person has not been convicted of a felony or of 

any misdemeanor involving moral turpitude and that 

rehabilitation has been attained to the satisfaction of the court, it 

shall order all records, papers, and exhibits in the person’s case 

in the custody of the juvenile court sealed, including the juvenile 
5

court record, minute book entries, and entries on dockets, and 

any other records relating to the case in the custody of the other 

agencies, entities, and officials as are named in the order. Once 

the court has ordered the person’s records sealed, the proceedings 

in the case shall be deemed never to have occurred, and the 

person may properly reply accordingly to any inquiry about the 

events, the records of which are ordered sealed.” (Italics added.)

2.

Although the statute does not expressly state whether a 

supplemental or amended petition is permitted, we agree with 

A.B. and the People that section 781 does not bar such a petition 

(when the first fails to seal all juvenile records) and that, on 

A.B.’s request, the juvenile court was authorized to access his 

records. The juvenile court erred by ruling otherwise. 

The statute explicitly allows a qualifying person with 

juvenile records, such as A.B., to file a petition to seal such 

records “at any time” after age 18. (§ 781, subd. (a)(1)(A).) If, as 

here, the court finds that the person has not been convicted of a 

felony, or of any disqualifying misdemeanor, and that they have 

been rehabilitated to the court’s satisfaction, the court “shall 

order” the records to be sealed. (Ibid.) Nothing in the statute 

limits the qualifying person to a single petition. When a juvenile 

offender’s initial section 781 petition is denied, they may file a 

subsequent petition. (See In re J.W. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 663, 

670.) Likewise, a successful petition poses no barrier. 

To the extent the statute is ambiguous, our interpretation 

is consistent with the legislative intent underlying section 781: 

“ ‘to protect minors from future prejudice resulting from their 

juvenile records.’ ” (In re Jeffrey T., supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at p. 

1020.)2 Giving rehabilitated juvenile offenders a clean slate also 

2 A.B. asked that we take judicial notice of legislative 

history for sections 781 and 786. We deny the request because it 
6

serves one of the main objectives of the juvenile delinquency 

system—rehabilitation. (See § 202, subd. (b); In re Carl N. (2008) 

160 Cal.App.4th 423, 432.) 

Adopting the juvenile court’s construction would arbitrarily 

frustrate the statutory purpose. A mistake by a juvenile 

offender’s attorney or by the probation department—which is 

tasked with identifying all agencies having custody of the 

person’s juvenile records (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.830(a)(4))3—

would be forever irremediable. When a rehabilitated juvenile 

offender is eligible for section 781 relief, no purpose is served by 

permanently barring them from correcting an omission in the 

initial petition. 

Finally, to the extent the juvenile court needed to inspect 

any sealed records (such as the underlying case file) to rule on 

the supplemental petition, it had authority to do so. (See § 781, 

subd. (a)(4) [allowing the “person who is the subject of records 

sealed pursuant to this section . . . to permit inspection of the 

records”]; T.N.G. v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal.3d 767, 777, fn. 

12 [“[s]ection 781 envisions that a sealed record may be opened 

for inspection upon the petition of the juvenile concerned”].) 

is unnecessary to seek judicial notice of published legislative 

history. (Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 

Cal.4th 26, 45, fn. 9.) “Citation to the material is sufficient.” 

(Ibid.) 

3 “[T]he probation officer must do all of the following: [¶] (A) 

Prepare the petition; [¶] (B) Conduct an investigation under 

section 781 and compile a list of cases and contact addresses of 

every agency or person that the probation department knows has a 

record of the ward’s case-including the date of each offense, case 

number(s), and date when the case was closed-to be attached to 

the sealing petition; [¶] (C) Prepare a report to the court with a 

recommendation supporting or opposing the requested sealing; 

and [¶] . . . .” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.830(a)(4), italics added.)
7

The juvenile court erred by concluding it lacked authority 

to grant a supplemental petition under section 781.

DISPOSITION 

The order denying A.B.’s supplemental petition to seal is 

reversed. Because the juvenile court has already found that A.B. 

is eligible for relief, the matter is remanded to the juvenile court 

with directions to grant the petition. The court shall provide a 

copy of its order to each agency named therein, as required by 

section 781, subdivision (a)(1)(B).
8

______________________

BURNS, J. 

We concur:

____________________________

JACKSON, P.J.

____________________________

CHOU, J. 

A165499
9

Contra Costa County Superior Court, No. J09-01517, Hon. 

Barbara C. Hinton. 

Eileen Alisa Manning-Villar for Defendant and Appellant. 

Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California, Lance E. Winters, 

Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Roberta L. Davis and Gabriel 

Bradley, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.