1

Filed 4/1/21 P. v. Grace CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. JAMES MAURICE GRACE , Defendant and Appellant. E 07 5433 (Super.Ct.No s
. INF044039 , INF1401989 )
OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County

. Harold W. Ho pp , Judge

. Reversed and remanded with directions

. John L. Staley , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney G eneral, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General,
Eric A. Swenson and Jennifer B. Truong , Deputy Attorney s General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.2

James Maurice Grace appeals from the trial court ’ s order den ying petitions to dismiss convictions in two of his cases
. The People agree the trial court erroneously
denied the petitions

. We agree with the parties, reverse, and remand with directions

. I

. FACTS In 2003, Grace pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code , § 245, subd. (a)(1), unlabeled statutory citations refer to this code). The court suspended imposition of sent ence and placed Grace on summary probation

. In 201 5 , Grace pleaded guilty to spousal abuse. (§ 273.5, subd. (a).) The court again suspended imposition of
sentence and granted formal probation

. In January 2019, Grace filed petitions to dismiss both convicti ons under
section 1203.4. T he court denied both petitions , and Grace again filed petitions in
June 2020 seeking the same relief . The court held a hearing on the petitions in July 2020,
where it again denied both. At the hearing, the prosecutor admitted Gra ce had successfully completed probation in both cases but argued he was not entitled to relief
because he had committed offenses after completion of probation. Grace timely appealed.
II

. ANALYSIS Grace argues the trial court erred in denying the petitions filed in 2020 as he had completed all terms of probation and otherwise qualified for relie f as required under
section 1203.4. The People agree

.3

Under section 1203.4, a person may petition for reli ef if he has “ fulfilled the conditions of his probation for the entire period. ” ( People v. Holman (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1438, 1459 ( Holman ) .) If at the time of the petition the petitioner “ is not then serving a sentence for any offense, on probation for a ny offense, or charged with the commission of any offense ,” (§ 1203.4) they are “ entitled as a matter of right to the dismissal of the charge. ” ( Holman , at p. 1459

. ) The People agree Grace fulfilled the conditions of his probation in both cases at
issue . They also agree that at the time of the 2020 petitions, he was not serving a sentence, on probation, or charged with a crime. Therefore, under section 1203.4 the trial court was required to dismiss the relevant convictions, and it was error to d o otherwise.
III

. DISPOSITION
We reverse the trial court’s order denying Grace’s petitions to dismiss his
convictions

. We remand to the trial court with directions to grant Grace’s petitions and
dismiss the convictions in case Nos. INF1401989 and INF0440 39.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
SLOUGH Acting P. J. We concur:
FIELDS J.
RAPHAEL J.