196 Cal. App. 4th 91
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- CDCR must provide basic correctional officer training, traditionally at the Galt or Stockton academies.
- In 2006 CDCR piloted basic training at three community colleges and at a Susanville satellite academy, with different supervision and wage structures for cadets.
- CCPOA challenged 2006 programs as unlawful under Penal Code 13602(a), which CCPOA认为 confines training to Galt or Stockton.
- The trial court denied CCPOA’s summary adjudication, ruling 13602(a) was not limited to Galt/Stockton in light of legislative history.
- CCPOA appealed, arguing 13602(a) is mandatory to train only at Galt/Stockton; CDCR argued “may” is permissive and allows training elsewhere.
- The appellate court ultimately held that 13602(a) authorizes training only at Galt or Stockton and nowhere else, reversing the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 13602(a) restricts training to Galt/Stockton | CCPOA argues mandatory confinement to Galt/Stockton. | CDCR contends 'may' is permissive, allowing other locations. | Yes; 13602(a) limits training to Galt or Stockton. |
| How to interpret 'may' and 'or' in 13602(a) | Language shows discretionary choice but subject to broader statutory context. | Language is permissive and not clearly mandatory. | Interpreted as limiting discretion to Galt/Stockton; 'may' plus 'or' creates a limiting construction. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Trevino, 26 Cal.4th 237 (Cal. 2001) (statutory interpretation principles; legislative intent from words and context)
- People v. Gardeley, 14 Cal.4th 605 (Cal. 1996) (consider extrinsic aids if language susceptible to more than one meaning)
- In re Jesusa V., 32 Cal.4th 588 (Cal. 2004) (interpretation of 'or' in statute; contextual reading)
- Nolan v. City of Anaheim, 33 Cal.4th 335 (Cal. 2004) (statutory interpretation and legislative intent)
- Harless v. Carter, 42 Cal.2d 352 (Cal. 1954) (interpretation of 'may' as discretionary or mandatory)
- Hess Collection Winery v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., 140 Cal.App.4th 1584 (Cal. App. 5th Dist. 2006) (may or shall distinctions in statutory duty)
- Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity, 19 Cal.4th 1106 (Cal. 1999) (different words in statute may imply different meaning)
- Elsner v. Uveges, 34 Cal.4th 915 (Cal. 2004) (avoid surplusage in statutory construction)