People v. Butcher
202 Cal. Rptr. 3d 135
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Ryan Allen Butcher was on probation for a felony evading conviction (Veh. Code § 2800.2(a)) and later pled no contest to threatening a public officer (Pen. Code § 71) in a separate case; multiple earlier probation revocations and reinstatements occurred.
- On Sept. 13, 2014 Butcher was arrested after a traffic collision and an altercation with Redondo Beach officers; officers testified he attempted to bite an officer, captured on body camera.
- At the contested probation-violation hearing (Dec. 26, 2014), the court credited officer testimony over a defense passenger’s account and found Butcher violated the probation condition to “obey all laws” (assault on a police officer).
- On Jan. 2, 2015 the court initially imposed a county-jail aggregate term but later (Jan. 9, 2015) resentenced Butcher to state prison, concluding Veh. Code § 2800.2(a) felony is a “straight state prison” offense post-Realignment.
- This appeal challenges the probation revocation and the legality of the state-prison commitment under the 2011 Criminal Justice Realignment Act; the appellate court affirms the violation finding and the state-prison sentence but orders corrections to fines, fees, and custody credits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did substantial evidence support revocation of probation for assault on a peace officer? | Prosecution: officer testimony and body-camera evidence show Butcher tried to bite an officer, violating probation condition to obey laws. | Butcher (pro se): officers lied; passenger testimony contradicted officers (Butcher did not testify). | Affirmed. Court found substantial evidence and credited officer testimony; appellate court will not reweigh credibility. |
| Under the Realignment Act, must a felony violation of Veh. Code § 2800.2(a) be served in state prison or county jail? | Prosecution: § 2800.2(a) expressly provides punishment “by imprisonment in the state prison”; it was not amended to invoke Penal Code § 1170(h), so it remains a state-prison offense. | Butcher: (argued) sentencing should follow Realignment (county jail/§ 1170(h))—i.e., not a straight state-prison term. | Held: Veh. Code § 2800.2(a) remains a straight state-prison offense; Realignment did not amend that provision to invoke § 1170(h), so state-prison commitment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (procedural review of appellate counsel’s brief; court independently reviews record)
- Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (standards for court-appointed appellate counsel and record review)
- People v. Statum, 28 Cal.4th 682 (Veh. Code § 2800.2 is an alternative felony-misdemeanor provision)
- People v. Scott, 58 Cal.4th 1415 (overview and effect of the 2011 Realignment Act)
- People v. Guillen, 212 Cal.App.4th 992 (interpreting vehicle-code provisions that expressly state “imprisonment in the state prison” as excluding § 1170(h) realignment sentencing)
- People v. Brookfield, 47 Cal.4th 583 (statutory construction principles: read provision in context to ascertain legislative intent)