Big Difference For Real Estate Agent When Criminal Conviction Is Dismissed “In The Interests Of Justice” Under Penal Code Section 1385 Than When It’s Expunged Under Penal Code Section 1203.4.

In January 2009, a licensed real estate agent pleaded no contest and was convicted of misdemeanor hit and run with property damage in violation of Vehicle Code section 20002(a). In April 2010, after negotiations with the district attorney, the court granted the real estate’s motion to set aside her no contest plea. The court also granted the people’s motion to amend the complaint to allege a violation of the basic speed law in violation of Vehicle Code section 22350, an infraction. The real estate agent pled guilty to the infraction, and the court dismissed her hit and run conviction nunc pro tunc to her January 2009 plea, “in the interests of justice.” An administrative law judge ordered the real estate agent’s license revoked. The real estate agent brought a writ for administrative mandamus in superior court. The trial court said section Business and Professions Code section 10177 authorized the California Bureau of Real Estate to revoke the license of a real estate salesperson convicted of a crime. However, the court held the order was not to expunge the real estate agent’s conviction pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.4, but was an order to dismiss “in the interests of justice” under Penal Code section 1385. Accordingly, the trial court ordered the Bureau to set aside its decision revoking the agent’s real estate license. The appellate court affirmed, stating, “[W]e hold that section 10177 does not authorize the license revocation in this case because that section does not allow discipline when there has been a dismissal unless the dismissal is pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.4, i.e., an expungement. Here, the dismissal was not pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.4, and there is no other evidence supporting the Bureau’s revocation of [the real estate agent’s] real estate license.” (Ryan-Lanigan v. Bureau of Real Estate (Cal.App. Third Dist.; December 13, 2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 72.)