People v. Cardenas CA5
F079697
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 22, 2021Background
- Proposition 64 (2016) generally legalized possession of up to 28.5 grams of cannabis for persons 21+, but included section 11362.45(d) limiting application on Department of Corrections grounds.
- Penal Code section 4573.6 makes possession of controlled substances in state prison a felony.
- In 2019 Cardenas pleaded no contest to felony marijuana possession in prison under section 4573.6 and asked the court to dismiss or reduce the charge under Prop 64.
- The trial court denied relief, citing a split in California Courts of Appeal, and imposed a stipulated six‑year sentence.
- On appeal the Fifth District rejected Cardenas’s contention that Prop 64 decriminalized in‑prison possession and affirmed, following the reasoning of People v. Perry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Prop 64 decriminalize possession of ≤28.5 grams of marijuana by adults in state prison? | People: Prop 64 did not remove criminality of in‑prison possession; §11362.45(d) excludes prisons. | Cardenas: Prop 64 decriminalized small‑amount possession in prison; §11362.45(d) addresses consumption, not possession. | Court affirmed: Prop 64 did not decriminalize possession in prison; Perry’s reading of §11362.45(d) is more persuasive. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Perry, 32 Cal.App.5th 885 (concluding Proposition 64 did not decriminalize possession of marijuana in state prison)
- People v. Raybon, 36 Cal.App.5th 111 (concluding Proposition 64 decriminalized possession of small amounts in prison)
- People v. Whalum, 50 Cal.App.5th 1 (agreeing with Perry that Prop 64 does not decriminalize in‑prison possession)
- People v. Herrera, 52 Cal.App.5th 982 (adopting Perry’s reasoning that Prop 64’s exemptions preserve prison possession prohibitions)