Filed 5/6/15

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

In re J.W., a Person Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law.

______________________________

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.W.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B255656

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. MJ21052)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 

Nancy S. Pogue, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.

Jeanine G. Strong, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney 

General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey and 

Robert M. Snider, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________
2

Appellant J.W. appeals from the decision of the trial court rejecting his request to 

seal his juvenile records. He contends that the court erred by considering the seriousness 

of his offenses and abused its discretion by not finding him rehabilitated. Moreover,

appellant argues that the application of section 781, subdivision (a) of the Welfare and 

Institutions Code violated his right to due process, in that the statute is unconstitutionally 

vague.

1 We conclude that the court did not err in declining to seal the records of the 

appellant, and therefore affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Appellant was born in October 1995. His juvenile records consisted of at least 14

incidents. We state only the significant facts. When he was 14 years old, appellant was 

arrested for petty theft in violation of Penal Code section 488. He was counseled and 

released. When he was 15 years old, he was arrested for disturbing the peace in violation 

of Penal Code Section 415. He was counseled and released as well. A couple of months 

later, on October 2, 2011, he committed three counts of attempted robbery in violation of 

Penal Code sections 664/211, and one count of battery causing serious bodily injury in 

violation of Penal Code section 243, subdivision (d). In this incident, appellant and three 

other individuals took part in an attempted robbery. Appellant and his companions 

surrounded the victims and demanded that the victims empty their pockets. When one of 

the victims refused the command, appellant punched him on the left side of his face.2 For 

those offenses, he was ordered home on probation for six months. During this time, 

appellant committed a series of infractions for which he was fined. They are identified as 

 

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions 

Code.

2 At the hearing on appellant’s motion to seal, the court discussed the facts of this 

offense, as taken from the pre-plea probation report. Appellant does not suggest that the 

facts were incorrectly stated. The Attorney General has requested that we take judicial 

notice of an appellate brief filed by appellant in case No. B240953 (Nov. 30, 2012 

[nonpub. opn.]), in which appellant’s counsel sets forth the prosecution’s evidence in a 

nearly identical manner. We grant the request for judicial notice. 
3

“LSMC” violations, which appear to have been traffic related. On appeal, the Attorney 

General offers no further explanation of these violations. The total amount of fines 

exceeded $1,000.

Appellant’s juvenile probation ended on October 18, 2012. He turned 18 in 

October 2013. Shortly thereafter, appellant petitioned the court to have his juvenile

records sealed pursuant to section 781, subdivision (a). Four days prior to filing the 

petition, appellant paid $1,066, an amount he believed sufficient to satisfy his outstanding 

fines. The court initially ordered the records sealed on December 26, 2013. However, 

the court subsequently received information that appellant had not fully paid his fines and 

vacated its order. Then the court proceeded to a hearing in order to consider once again 

whether to seal appellant’s juvenile records.

3

At the hearing, although it appeared that appellant might have been given incorrect 

information regarding the total amount of his outstanding fines, the court accepted the 

$1066 as payment in full. During the hearing, appellant presented evidence of his 

rehabilitation in the form of three letters. Two were from a counselor at Antelope Valley 

Youth Build. The first indicated that appellant had completed his community service, 

and the second was a generic letter of recommendation. Finally, a pastor who had

mentored appellant for the past 18 months wrote a letter attesting to appellant’s good 

character. Appellant provided proof that he had attended and finished high school, was 

currently enrolled in a community college class, and wanted to join the United States Air 

Force. The Air Force recruiter advised appellant to attempt to have his records sealed.

The court weighed the evidence of the rehabilitation proffered by appellant but

declined to seal his juvenile records. The court was concerned that appellant’s October 2,

2011 attempted robbery/battery offenses were serious and insufficient time had elapsed 

 

3 Section 781, subdivision (a) provides that, once a petition for record sealing is 

filed, “[t]he court shall notify the district attorney of the county and the county probation 

officer, if he or she is not the petitioner, and the district attorney or probation officer or 

any of their deputies or any other person having relevant evidence may testify at the 

hearing on the petition.” The trial court may have concluded that it had acted 

prematurely in granting the petition prior to hearing.
4

since the crime. The court concluded appellant was not yet rehabilitated, but left open 

the possibility of sealing the records after more time had passed. Appellant filed a timely 

notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

1. The Complementary Pillars of Juvenile Justice 

The juvenile delinquency system is not concerned merely with punishing 

juvenile offenders. Instead, the court is also concerned with rehabilitating them. (In re 

Carl N. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 423, 432-433.) The purpose of the juvenile court system 

is set forth in section 202. “Minors under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court as a 

consequence of delinquent conduct shall, in conformity with the interests of public safety 

and protection, receive care, treatment, and guidance that is consistent with their best 

interest, that holds them accountable for their behavior, and that is appropriate for their 

circumstances.” (§ 202, subd. (b).) The minor’s rehabilitation and the concomitant

protection of public safety are important considerations in the juvenile justice system. (In 

re Carl N., at pp. 432-433.)

2. The Court’s Discretion to Seal Juvenile Records 

Section 781, subdivision (a) grants the court discretion to seal the juvenile’s

delinquency records unless the juvenile has committed an offense specified under section 

707, subdivision (b). Appellant has not committed any of the enumerated offenses that 

would render him statutorily ineligible to have his records sealed. Section 781, 

subdivision (a) provides that an eligible juvenile offender can “at any time after the 

person has reached the age of 18 years, 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, 

and public officials as the petitioner alleges, in his or her petition, to have custody of the 

records.” Records shall be ordered sealed only “if . . . the court finds that since the 
5

termination of jurisdiction [the petitioner] 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.”

4

(§ 781, subd. (a).) This court reviews the trial court’s order

for abuse of discretion. (In re Gina S. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1082.)

3. The Court May Consider the Seriousness of the Offense

Appellant’s principal argument on appeal is that the trial court relied on an 

improper factor to deny his petition: the seriousness of his offenses. Appellant argues 

that the seriousness of his offenses should not be considered because the focus in such a 

hearing should be on the applicant’s rehabilitation, that is, on his behavior following the 

juvenile adjudication, not on his prior criminal activity. 

We agree with appellant that the focus is on the juvenile’s rehabilitation but part 

company with his assertion that the seriousness of the offenses is somehow unrelated to 

rehabilitation.

First, the language of section 781 suggests the court should consider the 

seriousness of the juvenile’s offenses. If the juvenile has committed an offense 

enumerated under section 707, subdivision (b), the court may not seal the records even if 

the court concludes the juvenile is otherwise rehabilitated. (See In re G.Y. (2015) 

234 Cal.App.4th 1196, 1204.) As the statute provides that some offenses are so serious 

juvenile records must remain open as a matter of law, it would be at odds with the 

legislative intent for the trial court to be precluded from even considering the seriousness 

of the offense in determining whether the juvenile has or has not been rehabilitated.

Second, other statutory schemes that require a determination of rehabilitation 

allow consideration of the seriousness of the offense. We find an analogy to adult parole. 

Penal Code section 3041, subdivision (b) states that a release date must be set “unless 

[the Board] determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense or offenses, or the 

timing and gravity of current or past convicted offense or offenses, is such that 

 

4 There is no suggestion appellant has committed a felony or moral turpitude 

misdemeanor post termination of probation.
6

consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for this 

individual, and that a parole date, therefore, cannot be fixed at this meeting.” In effecting 

Penal Code section 3041 subdivision (b), our Supreme Court held in In re Lawrence

(2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181, 1221, that the critical determination in a parole decision is 

whether the inmate presents a current risk of danger to society. However, the gravity and 

seriousness of the commitment offense may be relevant to that determination, particularly 

when there has not been a lengthy passage of time or other evidence of a change in the 

inmate’s psychological or mental attitude indicating the offense is no longer predictive of 

current dangerousness. “Indeed, as established in the companion case of In re Shaputis 

[(2008)] 44 Cal.4th 1241, 1259-1261, filed concurrently with this opinion, the Governor 

does not act arbitrarily or capriciously in reversing a grant of parole when evidence in the 

record supports the conclusion that the circumstances of the crime continue to be 

predictive of current dangerousness despite an inmate’s discipline-free record during 

incarceration.” (In re Lawrence, at p. 1228.) In short, an individual’s offenses, 

especially when committed recently, may serve as a predictor of future behavior and may 

suggest in light of all the evidence that rehabilitation has not been reached.

Third, we find it helpful to compare the juvenile records sealing statute with the 

provisions of the Penal Code governing how an adult offender may obtain a certificate of 

rehabilitation. Penal Code section 4852.03 provides that the period of rehabilitation must

be for at least five years, with additional time based on the severity of the offenses.5 

Section 4852.1 provides that for the purpose of rehabilitation, the court may “require 

such testimony as it deems necessary, and the production, for the use of the court . . . of 

all records and reports relating to the petitioner and the crime of which he was 

convicted, . . . showing his conduct . . . .” Thus, in determining whether an adult has 

been statutorily rehabilitated, the Legislature requires that the severity of prior 

wrongdoings must be taken into account. 

 

5 We do not intend to imply that a juvenile cannot be found to be rehabilitated until 

five years have passed since his last offense. We simply note that the statutes regarding 

adult rehabilitation impose time limits depending on the severity of the offense.
7

As discussed, the principles of juvenile justice address both the potential for 

rehabilitation and the safety of the community. If in considering whether a juvenile 

offender is sufficiently rehabilitated, the seriousness of the offense and resulting danger 

to society, if any, are ignored, the delinquency system is severely compromised.

We find no error in the trial court’s consideration of the seriousness of the offense 

in deciding whether to seal appellant’s records. 

4. The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Finding Appellant Was Not Yet 

Rehabilitated 

Appellant produced some evidence that he had turned his life around. Appellant 

had improved his behavior, finished high school, and was taking a class at a community 

college. We find this admirable. But the trial court was well within its discretion in 

concluding that the seriousness of the offenses and their recent commission precluded a 

finding that appellant was rehabilitated. As the trial court acknowledged, the passage of 

time works in his favor, and if appellant furthers his rehabilitation, he will in the future 

have the opportunity to ask the trial court to seal his records. 

5. The Court Did Not Violate the Due Process by Refusing to Seal the Juvenile 

Records 

Appellant next contends he was denied due process because the term

“rehabilitation” set forth in section 781 is unconstitutionally vague. A statute is vague if 

a person of common intelligence must guess the meaning of the statute or its application.

(People v. iMergent, Inc. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 333, 339.) “ ‘ “ ‘[A] statute which 

either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that [persons] of common 

intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates 

the first essential of due process of law.’ ” ’ ” (Ibid.) The “ ‘ “requirement that 

government articulate its aims with a reasonable degree of clarity ensures that state power

. . . reduces the danger of caprice and discrimination in the administration of the laws, 

enables individuals to conform their conduct to the requirements of law, and permits 
8

meaningful judicial reviews.” ’ ” (Ibid.; quoting Schweitzer v. Westminster Investment, 

Inc. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1195, 1206.)

Appellant contends section 781 is unconstitutional because it leaves the 

determination of “rehabilitation” to the discretion of the court, without affording

appellant with a reasonable means to determine what showing he must make in order to 

have his records sealed. We reject the argument. “In determining whether a statute is 

unconstitutionally vague, only a reasonable certainty is required and a statute will be 

upheld if any reasonable and practical construction can be given to its language.” (In re 

Mariah T. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 428, 435.) “[A] statute will be deemed sufficiently 

precise if its meaning can be fairly ascertained by references to similar statutes or other 

judicial determinations, or to the common law or the dictionary, or if the words have a 

common and generally accepted meaning.” (Ibid.) The number of common terms that 

courts have found not impermissibly vague is as varied as is our law. (See, e.g., People 

v. Flores (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1070, 1074-1075 [“unreasonable” in “unreasonable risk 

of danger to public safety” not unconstitutionally vague]; In re Mariah T., at p. 437 

[“serious physical harm” not unconstitutionally vague]; Katz v. Department of Motor 

Vehicles (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 679 [“good taste and decency” not unconstitutionally 

vague].)

“Rehabilitation” is a common term, with a generally accepted meaning throughout 

juvenile and adult offender law. (See, e.g., In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 

910; In re Angel J. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1100.) In Palacios-Torres v. INS

(7th Cir. 1993) 995 F.2d 96, the United States Court of Appeal expressly concluded that 

“rehabilitation” was not unconstitutionally vague. In that case, a deportable resident alien 

sought relief from the order of deportation on the basis that, although he was convicted of 

drug offenses, he had been rehabilitated. He argued that the Board of Immigration 

Appeals had not set forth the criteria of rehabilitation, and that, therefore, he was denied 

“fair notice of the type of evidence he must bring forth in order to demonstrate 

rehabilitation.” (Id. at p. 99.) The court disagreed, concluding that rehabilitation is a 

judgment call, “involving an estimate or prediction of an individual’s future conduct.”
9

(Ibid.) Numerous facts and circumstances related to the individual and his offenses 

(including the nature of the crime, repeat offenses, remorse, admission of guilt, 

credibility, and attempts to live a drug-free life) must be taken into account to make this 

determination. The court concluded that “the concept of rehabilitation as applied by the 

Board [was not] so vague as to deny an applicant notice of the type of evidence relevant 

to a successful showing.” (Id. at p. 100.) We agree.

We conclude that section 781 is not unconstitutionally vague. Although the 

statute provides that sealing will not be ordered unless “rehabilitation has been attained to 

the satisfaction of the court,” the statute is not so vague as to require an applicant to guess 

as to the showing that must be made. The term “rehabilitation” is, by its nature, 

predictive. An applicant seeking to seal his or her juvenile records must make a showing 

sufficient to convince the court that criminal behavior is in the past and will not be 

repeated. This is a determination based on the totality of the circumstances and 

individual factors will inevitably vary. It is the life that the juvenile has lived that will 

direct the trial court’s ruling. No one is in a better position to explain this rehabilitation 

than the offender. Appellant understood what was required of him and attempted to 

make a sufficient showing. He submitted letters purporting to show his development into 

a mature individual and evidence of high school completion and enrollment in college, all 

in order to show steps he had taken toward a law-abiding lifestyle. His discussion with 

an Air Force recruiter reflected a commitment to future plans that did not involve 

criminal activity. All of these factors were relevant to the determination of rehabilitation; 

the trial court simply found that they were insufficient to establish rehabilitation given the 

short time since appellant’s commission of a serious offense.
10

DISPOSITION

The order denying appellant’s petition to seal his records is affirmed.

RUBIN, J.

WE CONCUR:

BIGELOW, P. J.

GRIMES, J.