(D)

Criminal Effect of Dismissal.  If the charge[368] is dismissed after conviction – whether by trial or plea, the effect under California law is as if the defendant has never been prosecuted for that charge or allegation: 

 

            The discretion of a trial judge to dismiss a criminal action under section 1385 may be exercised at any time during the trial, including after a jury verdict of guilty. (People v. Superior Court (Howard) (1968) 69 Cal.2d 491, 501-502 [72 Cal.Rptr. 330, 446 P.2d 138].)  Section 1385 authorizes the court to dismiss in furtherance of justice in any circumstance in which the legislative body has not clearly manifested a contrary intent. (Id. at pp. 503-505.)  A judgment of dismissal is not an adjudication the charged crime was not committed. Rather, the dismissal operates to free the criminal defendant from further prosecution and punishment for that crime. The defendant stands as if he had never been prosecuted for the charged offense.[369]

 

Because dismissal is as if the defendant has never been prosecuted, it is also as if s/he had never been sentenced.

[368] California law distinguishes between a conviction that is dismissed, which is eliminated, and an allegation of a prior conviction contained in the charging paper in a later case.  In the latter case, only the prior conviction allegation is dismissed from the current charging paper, but the underlying conviction is not disturbed.  People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 508, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 789.

[369] People v. Superior Court (Flores) (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 127, 136, 262 Cal.Rptr. 576, citing People v. Simpson (1944) 66 Cal.App.2d 319, 329, 152 P.2d 339.

ARTICLE " CAL POST CON
In People v. Kim, 212 Cal.App.4th 117, 151 Cal.Rptr.3d 154, (6th Dist. Dec. 19, 2012), the Sixth District held that judgment had been imposed and defendant had served his prison sentence in this case. The trial court therefore had no authority to dismiss the action pursuant to section 1385. This decision therefore does not apply unless [1] a state prison judgment has been imposed, and [2] the defendant has completed serving it. The court quoted a prior decision stating that section 1385 has never been held to authorize dismissal of an action after the imposition of sentence and rendition of judgment. (Id. at ___, quoting People v. Barraza (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 114, 121, n.8.) The court pointed out that Defendant does not dispute the principle that section 1385 does not authorize a dismissal after imposition of sentence and rendition of judgment. Instead, he counterintuitively urges that there has not yet been a judgment in this case. (Id. at ___.) Mr. Kim argued that his prison judgment, already served, had been vacated in 2003, at which time imposition of sentence had been suspended, and probation granted. The court of appeal, however, concluded that the 2003 vacatur was void, and the previously imposed state prison judgment remained in effect, barring use of section 1385 to dismiss the action. (Id. at ___.) Where, however, no prison judgment has been imposed, but instead imposition of sentence was suspended, and the defendant was placed on probation, there is no bar to use of section 1385 to dismiss an action. (See People v. Howard (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1081, 1087 [When the trial court suspends imposition of sentence, no judgment is then pending against the probationer, who is subject only to the terms and conditions of the probation.]; quoted with approval in People v. Kim, supra, 212 Cal.App.4th 117, ___.) In People v. Orabuena, 116 Cal.App.4th 84 (2004), the court of appeal reaffirmed the post-sentence use of section 1385 to dismiss an action where probation, rather than a judgment, had been imposed. In California, a judgment of conviction is not deemed to have been entered where imposition of sentence is suspended and probation granted, even though a conviction may exist for purposes of finality and appeal. In Orabuena, the court dismissed an action, under 1385, after imposition of sentence was suspended, and the defendant had been placed on probation, in order to eliminate the conviction as a bar to diversion for a later offense. After careful analysis, it concluded that a grant of probation, as opposed to imposition of judgment, did not bar use of section 1385 to dismiss an action after sentence in the interests of justice. The court in Kim ruled out the possibility of using Penal Code 1385 dismissals to vacate convictions after a prison sentence or judgment has been imposed. It did not, however, alter the well-established precedent that 1385 may be used to dismiss convictions in which imposition of sentence had been suspended and probation ordered. See Orabuena, supra.

Lower Courts of Ninth Circuit

CAL POST CON " VEHICLES " DISMISSAL UNDER PENAL CODE 1385 " COURT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO DISMISS AN ACTION AFTER FORMAL JUDGMENT HAS BEEN IMPOSED AND THE DEFENDANT HAS SERVED THE PRISON SENTENCE
People v. Kim, 212 Cal.App.4th 117, ___, 151 Cal.Rptr.3d 154, 2012 WL 6761652 (6th Dist. Dec. 19, 2012) (In short, judgment had been imposed and defendant had served his prison sentence in this case. The trial court therefore had no authority to dismiss the action pursuant to section 1385.).