If the DA is willing to offer a DEJ for a misdemeanor case and after completing a special period defendant X's case will be dismissed, for defendant X, what would be the collateral consequences for doing this approach? For instance, I heard that a case that has been dismissed has not "truly been dismissed", and that in certain cases, a DEJ cannot be sealed or expunged. This last instance seems to be a big problem in Texas, where defendants were persuaded to take a DEJ and years later they learned that employers and landlords can see the DEj in their records. I read even a governor's pardon will not help this defendants because there was never a formal conviction.
However, I wonder if the laws are different in California, especially in courtrooms located in the San Fernando Valley area.
One of the primary disadvantages of a criminal record is that it can cause the offender to be ineligible for State licensing in the many hundreds of occupations and professions that require a State license, credential, certificate or permit -- everything from physician and attorney to barber and funeral director. P.C. 1000 Deferred Entry of Judgment will prevent the State from using the plea and the arrest (but not the underlying facts) as a basis for denying an application for State license --a considerable benefit.
No legal advice here. READ THIS BEFORE you contact me! My responses to questions on Avvo are never intended as legal advice and must not be relied upon as if they were legal advice. I give legal advice ONLY in the course of a formal attorney-client relationship. Exchange of information through Avvo's Questions forum does not establish an attorney-client relationship with me. That relationship is established only by joint execution of a written agreement for legal services. My law firm does not provide free consultations. Please do not call or write to me with a “few questions” that require me to analyze the specific facts of your history and your license application and prescribe for you how to get a State license. Send me an email to schedule a paid Consultation for that kind of information, direction, and assistance. My law firm presently accepts cases involving State and federal licenses and permits; discipline against State and federal licenses; and disciplinary and academic challenges to universities, colleges, boarding schools, and private schools. We take cases of wrongful termination or employment discrimination only if the claims involve peace officers, universities or colleges.
As an attorney licensed to practice in California, I will only advise you regarding California law. If another state wants to ask you whether or not you've ever participated in court diversion, I will not comment on the legality of their inquiry, or whether Kentucky, or Iowa or Guam can deny you employment based on how you handled your case in California. The same goes for federal employment. I do know for a fact that under federal law, even a misdemeanor drug case handled with PC1000 diversion can have very serious immigration consequences for non-citizens, including deportation -- even for a misdemeanor marijuana conviction! I just cite that as an example of how federal law can see things very differently than the courts in California. So you are right to be wary of diversion; it's not going to be a magical cure-all solution for every possible situation, and if you're thinking of a specific out-of-state or federal position, you may need to hire an attorney to do specific research on the issue.
With that said, I can tell you that the "easiest" level of diversion typically offered in California for first-time drug offenders (Under Penal Code Section 1000) is generally *very* protective of your right to apply for work in California after participating. For most folks, it's a good option. For private and government sector jobs, the code makes it very clear that no one can hold it against you that you participated. In fact, it's not even legal that you be asked if you participated. The only exception to this that I am aware of is if you want to work as a police officer. In that case, you would need to disclose that you participated in diversion.
I speak here only of PC1000. The next level of diversion is commonly referred to as Prop 36 or PC1210. That program is not as protective, and will carry more burdensome consequences. So if this is your first drug-related offense, be sure you're being offered PC1000. Also, some courts and D.A.s have their own local programs, so perhaps a SFV attorney can chime in here.
In a nutshell, if you want to live and work in California, and you're not planning a career in law enforcement, participating in PC1000 isn't going to slam any doors shut for you. Just make sure you talk to a lawyer about the facts of your case before signing up for anything, because even a case that you think is a slam-dunk guilty scenario may hinge on a technicality that a decent lawyer could use to get the case thrown out.
Best of luck to you!
If you are a government employee, then it is likely that you are a union member. Your attorney should work closely with the union to determine the best suitable outcome to remain employed. Best wishes.
for Fairness & Your Freedom because sometimes good people find themselves in unpleasant situations
The response above is not intended as legal advice since it’s impracticable to provide thorough, accurate advice based upon the query without additional details. It is highly recommended that one should seek advice from a criminal defense attorney licensed in your jurisdiction by setting up a confidential meeting. Moreover, this response does not constitute the creation of an attorney-client relationship since this message is not a confidential communication because it was posted on a public website, thereby publicly disclosing the information, which is another reason to setup a confidential meeting with an attorney.
The answer to your question is going to depend a great deal on what kind of city, state or federal job is at issue, the type of background security clearance required and the underlying facts in the sting operation. This is not a PC 1000 diversion and is a deferred entry of judgment where there is a plea and then later the case is dismissed at sentencing. It will allow the individual to answer "no" that he has not been convicted on almost any job application except for those involving state licensing boards. If there is a background check that requires him or her to disclose arrests - then it would need to be disclosed. But this type of disposition is preferable to a regular conviction with a subsequent expungement. In this type of case, expungement would not be needed since there is no conviction. Sealing would not be possible since there was a plea unless there is a way to establish factual innocence at a later date. I would need to know more to say definitively but it's good these collateral issue are being considered.
Years licensed, work experience, education
Peer endorsements, associations, awards
Publications, speaking engagements