Title: People v. Maya
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S255371
State: California
Issuer: California Supreme Court
Date: April 9, 2020

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF 
CALIFORNIA 
 
THE PEOPLE, 
Plaintiff and Respondent, 
v. 
MISAEL VENCES MAYA, 
Defendant and Appellant. 
 
S255371 
 
Second Appellate District, Division Six 
B290589 
 
Ventura County Superior Court  
2010031209 
 
 
April 9, 2020 
 
Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye authored the opinion of the 
Court, in which Justices Chin, Corrigan, Liu, Cuéllar, Kruger, 
and Groban concurred. 
 
PEOPLE v. MAYA 
S255371 
 
Opinion of the Court by Cantil-Sakauye, C. J. 
 
A person convicted of a misdemeanor is entitled to 
expungement of that conviction if, among other things, the 
person lives “an honest and upright life” during a specified 
period after judgment.  (Pen. Code, § 1203.4a, subd. (a) (section 
1203.4a(a)).)  We hold that a person may live such a life even if 
that person has been in custody since completing the sentence 
imposed for the misdemeanor.   
I.  BACKGROUND 
A.  Trial Court 
Misael Vences Maya pleaded guilty to driving under the 
influence (with several such convictions prior) and felony 
possession of a controlled substance.  The trial court sentenced 
him to prison without probation.  Maya completed his term of 
imprisonment in 2012 and has been in federal immigration 
custody ever since.  While in immigration custody, Maya 
successfully applied to have the felony possession conviction 
reduced to a misdemeanor.  (See Pen. Code, § 1170.18, subds. (f), 
(g); all undesignated citations refer to this code.) 
Maya then sought expungement of the misdemeanor 
conviction under section 1203.4a(a), which contains the “honest 
and upright life” requirement mentioned above.  Among other 
things, he contended that he had obeyed all laws since being 
convicted and had participated in fire camp and Alcoholics 
Anonymous.  The district attorney opposed the request, arguing 
PEOPLE v. MAYA 
Opinion of the Court by Cantil-Sakauye, C. J. 
 
 
2 
 
 
in part that “[o]f course he’s had an upstanding life because he’s 
been a prisoner in state prison”; “there has been no period where 
he successfully or satisfactorily completed probation or even the 
post[-]custody release because he was directly into federal 
custody.  So there’s been no period even to evaluate.”  The trial 
court denied the request, stating that “[b]eing in custody for 
substantial periods of time” is not equivalent to living “an honest 
and upright life.”  
Maya moved for reconsideration.  The trial court denied 
the motion.  Among other things, the court observed that 
“[t]here’s been no opportunity by the Court or probation or by 
parole officials to determine whether [Maya] leads a law-abiding 
life when out of custody.”  The court did not discuss Maya’s 
participation in fire camp or Alcoholics Anonymous. 
B.  Court of Appeal 
Maya complained on appeal that the trial court “did not 
believe custodial time could qualify as honest and upright living 
for expungement purposes.”  A divided panel of the Court of 
Appeal affirmed, rejecting the premise “that a trial court 
considering an expungement motion may consider custodial 
behavior in assessing ‘an honest and upright life.’ ”  (People v. 
Maya (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 266, 270 (Maya).)   
Justice Tangeman dissented.  He interpreted the relevant 
statutory text to permit consideration of time spent in custody.  
(Maya, supra, 33 Cal.App.5th at p. 272 (dis. opn. of Tangeman, 
J.).)  We granted review to resolve the narrow question whether 
conduct while in custody can satisfy the honest and upright life 
requirement.     
PEOPLE v. MAYA 
Opinion of the Court by Cantil-Sakauye, C. J. 
 
 
3 
 
 
II.  ANALYSIS 
A. Section 1203.4a(a)’s “Honest and Upright Life” 
Provision Does Not Categorically Require That 
a Defendant Spend Time Outside of Custody 
Before Obtaining Expungement 
Abandoning a position they took in the Court of Appeal, 
the People now concede that “[n]othing in the text, structure, or 
purpose of [section 1203.4a(a)] categorically forbids a trial court 
from considering actions . . . while in custody — including 
immigration custody — in evaluating whether an individual 
seeking the expungement of a misdemeanor conviction has led 
an ‘honest and upright life.’ ”  We agree. 
Section 1203.4a(a) instructs that “[e]very defendant 
convicted of a misdemeanor and not granted probation . . . 
shall, at any time after the lapse of one year from the date of 
pronouncement of judgment, if he or she has fully complied with 
and performed the sentence of the court, is not then serving a 
sentence for any offense and is not under charge of commission 
of any crime, and has, since the pronouncement of judgment, 
lived an honest and upright life and has conformed to and 
obeyed the laws of the land, be permitted by the court to 
withdraw his or her plea of guilty . . . and enter a plea of not 
guilty; . . . and . . . the court shall thereupon dismiss the 
accusatory pleading against the defendant, who shall thereafter 
be released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the 
offense of which he or she has been convicted,” with exceptions 
not relevant here.  (Italics added.)    
The text of this provision strongly suggests that a court 
may consider a defendant’s behavior in custody, including 
immigration custody, when evaluating whether that defendant 
has lived an honest and upright life.  The statute directs a court 
PEOPLE v. MAYA 
Opinion of the Court by Cantil-Sakauye, C. J. 
 
 
4 
 
 
considering a request for relief to evaluate whether the 
defendant has “lived an honest and upright life” “since the 
pronouncement of judgment” (§ 1203.4a(a)), not since “the date 
of release from custody,” or anything to that effect (Maya, supra, 
33 Cal.App.5th at p. 272 (dis. opn. of Tangeman, J.)).  
Moreover, a defendant may become eligible for relief as 
soon as “any time after the lapse of one year from the date of 
pronouncement of judgment.”  (§ 1203.4a(a).)  Because a 
defendant convicted of a misdemeanor may be required to spend 
time in custody (see, e.g., § 19.2 [up to one year]), the statute’s 
focus on “time after” the pronouncement of judgment suggests 
that a defendant’s conduct while in custody is relevant to the 
court’s inquiry.  If time in custody were ignored as irrelevant, 
then misdemeanants sentenced to longer terms of confinement 
would be eligible for expungement after shorter periods of 
honest and upright living.  We have no reason to think the 
Legislature might have intended that result.   
By contrast, concluding that time in custody is relevant to 
the honest and upright life inquiry is not only supported by the 
statutory text, it makes practical sense as well.  Various 
provisions of the Penal Code reflect concern that those in 
custody for breaking the law may break the law again when 
incarcerated.  (See, e.g., §§ 243.1 [battery against custodial 
officer], 4573.6 [possession of controlled substance].)  In short, 
“persons in custody can, and often do, commit crimes . . . .”  
(Maya, supra, 33 Cal.App.5th at p. 272 (dis. opn. of Tangeman, 
J.).)  The possibility of expungement relief, and the benefits that 
come with it, may provide a powerful incentive for good 
behavior.  (See, e.g., Lab. Code, § 432.7, subd. (a)(1) [limiting 
employers’ use of expunged convictions].)  Considering 
individuals’ conduct while in custody when deciding whether to 
PEOPLE v. MAYA 
Opinion of the Court by Cantil-Sakauye, C. J. 
 
 
5 
 
 
grant that relief “encourage[s] their compliance with the law . . . 
pending their release.”  (Maya, at p. 273 (dis. opn. of Tangeman, 
J.).)  And courts are well-equipped to evaluate the significance 
of in-custody behavior, as they routinely do so in other legal 
contexts.  (See, e.g., §§ 1170.18, subd. (b)(2), 1170.126, subd. 
(g)(2).)  
We thus conclude, contrary to the Court of Appeal, that 
conduct while in custody is relevant to determining whether a 
defendant has satisfied the honest and upright life requirement. 
(See Maya, supra, 33 Cal.App.5th at p. 270.)  Based on the same 
considerations, we further hold that such conduct is not merely 
relevant; it can, in appropriate cases, satisfy that requirement.  
True, the fact that the conduct occurred while a defendant was 
in custody can be a pertinent factor in a court’s inquiry.  But 
nothing in the statutory text or legislative history permits us to 
hold that such conduct is categorically insufficient to satisfy the 
honest and upright life requirement.      
B. The Court of Appeal May Determine on Remand 
Whether the Trial Court Erred in Denying Maya 
Relief 
Rather than contesting the issue we granted review to 
resolve, the People ask us to affirm the judgment on the 
alternative ground that, even if time in custody is relevant to 
the honest and upright life inquiry, the trial court did not err in 
denying Maya expungement.  We decline to reach that issue.  On 
remand, the Court of Appeal may consider it in the first 
instance.  
PEOPLE v. MAYA 
Opinion of the Court by Cantil-Sakauye, C. J. 
 
 
6 
 
 
III.  DISPOSITION 
We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal and 
remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this 
opinion.   
 
CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J. 
 
We Concur: 
CHIN, J. 
CORRIGAN, J. 
LIU, J. 
CUÉLLAR, J. 
KRUGER, J. 
GROBAN, J.
 
 
See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court. 
 
Name of Opinion People v. Maya 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Unpublished Opinion 
Original Appeal 
Original Proceeding  
Review Granted XXX 33 Cal.App.5th 266 
Rehearing Granted 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Opinion No. S255371 
Date Filed:  April 9, 2020 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Court:  Superior 
County:  Ventura 
Judge:  Bruce A. Young 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Counsel: 
 
Wayne C. Tobin, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant. 
 
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Michael J. Mongan, State Solicitor General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief 
Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Janill L. Richards, Principal 
Deputy State Solicitor General, Helen H. Hong, Deputy State Solicitor General, Shawn McGahey 
Webb, Noah P. Hill and Shezad H. Thakor, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion): 
 
Wayne C. Tobin 
Attorney at Law 
1560-1 Newbury Road, #346 
Newbury Park, CA 91320-3448 
(805) 499-7656 
 
Helen H. Hong 
Deputy State Solicitor General  
600 West Broadway, Suite 1800 
San Diego, CA 92101 
(619) 738-9693