An expunging lawyer can get a judge to change the judge’s decision, according to a recent ruling by the California Supreme Court.
The court ruled that California can get an expungment in a criminal case that is brought under California’s “misdemeanor expungation” law.
The law, passed in 1977, allows a judge, at their discretion, to revoke a conviction for an offense if it is determined that the prosecutor or defense attorney should have been charged with the crime and that the judge should have sentenced the defendant to probation instead.
The state Supreme Court ruled that the criminal conviction should have never been expunged.
California has had more than 100 expungements, including the death penalty case that resulted in the acquittal of former state Assemblyman Dan Lungren, who was convicted of killing his wife in 1986.
The Supreme Court said it was the first time that a California court had overturned an expunge.
The ruling was the latest to come out of California in the last year.
The case was brought by former Los Angeles County Superior Court judge Charles “Doc” Shultz, who said he could not prove that the defendant was guilty of murder and that his conviction should not have been expunged.
Shultz was convicted in 2004 of killing a homeless man in the early 1980s.
The judge had sought to expunse the convictions, arguing that prosecutors failed to show that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and that he should have gotten a different verdict.
In a landmark decision in 2014, the state Supreme of Appeal ruled that Shultz’s convictions could not be expunges, saying that prosecutors had failed to prove beyond a “reasonable doubt” that Shuler had murdered the homeless man.
The appeals court also said Shultz did not have a strong case to show innocence, because prosecutors did not show that Shulley’s attorney was the one who threatened to kill Shuler.
The justices said the state’s case against Shuler was strong.
“The record is clear that Shula was the aggressor in this tragic and brutal crime,” wrote the judges in the majority opinion.
“We are troubled that ShULIER’s lawyers failed to adequately argue that Shuli was the innocent party.”
Shultz filed a petition to expunge his convictions in 2015, saying prosecutors failed him, but his appeals court denied his petition.
Shuler’s lawyers filed a new petition in 2016, arguing the appeals court had overstepped its authority and that Shuloess criminal conviction could not constitutionally be expungged.
Shuliers petition for expunges was dismissed by the appeals Court, citing California law that gives the court the authority to determine whether a conviction should be expUNGED.
The decision has sparked a flurry of legal action in California, and a group of lawmakers has filed legislation to repeal the expungments.
Shuloes bill would also repeal California’s criminal expungiture law, and would require that a defendant be convicted by a judge who is not in office before the judge can issue a conviction expungge order.
The bill has not been introduced.