Petition to Seal Granted, Shoplifting, Diversion, Torrance

The following summary is not one for a typical petition to seal, as this case had more twists and turns over ten years than anyone could have imagined when it started.

The case began like a rather straight forward shoplifting case.  Our client, age 43 at the time, walked into the Macy’s in the Del Amo Fashion Center and allegedly attempted the theft of certain merchandise.  She intended to purchase some of the small items, but instead walked out of the store without doing so. 

The Macy’s loss prevention officer detained her until the Torrance Police Department arrived and took her into custody for violating Penal Code 484 (a).  The total value of the items taken was approximately $356 and included a pair of expensive sunglasses and an expensive chocolate bar.

The client, who worked for a large corporation and was paid well, came to our office very anxious about losing her job and spending time in jail.

She described what had happened to her and Greg explained that he believed he could have the case dismissed upon showing the judge that a civil compromise had been reached with the store wherein our client paid the loss prevention demand of about $350.  The judge could then dismiss the case under Penal Code §§ 1377 and 1378.

The client then paid the loss prevention demand and Greg prepared a Motion for Civil Compromise, filed it in the Torrance Superior Court and served the Torrance City Prosecutor’s office.

The judge in Torrance granted the motion and our client was happy to have her case dismissed.

The Torrance City Prosecutor, however, appealed the dismissal to the Los Angeles Superior Court Appellate Division because the victim, Macy’s, did not come to court to approve of the settlement and dismissal. 

The Appellate Division granted the appeal and set aside the dismissal and the case was remanded back to the Torrance Superior Court for further proceedings.

Our client then entered into a plea bargain to a violation of Penal Code § 484(a) and was placed on three years of informal probation with an obligation to stay out of all Macy’s and pay a court fine of $150, plus penalties and assessments.

While our client was on probation, with imposition of the sentence suspended, Los Angeles County implemented a judicial diversion pilot program for two years.  Since our client was eligible for this still, Greg made a motion to vacate the client’s plea and place her on judicial diversion so she could avoid the conviction.  The judge agreed and allowed our client to withdraw her plea and be placed on judicial diversion.

The client then finished diversion and her case was dismissed under Penal Code § 1382.  The client was happy with this.

In 2019, the California Legislature then passed the CARE Act, which permitted one to petition a judge for an order to seal and destroy a police report and the court file when a case is dismissed.

Greg then filed many such petitions for clients who had “no files” and cases dismissed, but the record of the dismissal was still on their record.

Greg reached out to the client and advised her of the new law, but the client did not respond for three years, until 2023.

The client then called up Greg Hill and asked about filing a petition to seal the Torrance Police Department police report for her shoplifting case and the court file so that the record of the case would be erased or deleted from her Livescan, as she was not 53 years old and thinking about changing jobs.

Greg said he could file such a petition in the Torrance Courthouse, but warned the client that a judge might struggle to understand the procedural history of the case and may deny the petition because at one time, our client was convicted, although that conviction was later vacated.

The client said she still wanted to try, so Greg filed the petition to seal and served the law enforcement agency, as well as the Torrance City Prosecutor’s Office.

At the hearing on the petition, the judge did recognize the long procedural history of the case and took a long time to read the petition, but ultimately granted the petition, which made our client extremely happy.

For more information about the issues in this case, please click on the following articles: