People v. Pina
JAD17-09
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 24, 2017Background
- Pina was convicted of violating Vehicle Code §22520.5(a) after a court trial in Los Angeles County.
- Officer Demarco observed panhandling on the Bellflower off-ramp of the 405 Freeway, including accepting money from motorists.
- Pina sat on the curb with a sign requesting prayers, was arrested for panhandling on the off-ramp, and $51.35 was found on him.
- The trial court reduced the charge to an infraction and sentenced Pina to a total fine of $530 after penalties.
- The appellate division reversed the judgment, holding the statute does not prohibit begging or panhandling.
- The court undertook statutory-interpretation analysis, focusing on the meaning of “solicit” and the scope of vendable activity near freeways.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §22520.5(a) prohibit begging/panhandling. | Pina argues the statute targets vending, not begging. | Pina contends the statute does not reach panhandling. | No; panhandling is not within the statute’s prohibit list. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lofchie, 229 Cal.App.4th 240 (Cal.App.4th 2014) (statutory construction de novo; intent and text)
- People v. Whitlock, 113 Cal.App.4th 456 (Cal.App.4th 2003) (word ‘solicit’ in statutes; common meaning)
- People v. Sanchez, 60 Cal.App.4th 1490 (Cal.App.4th 1998) (solicitation definitions in criminal context)
- Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Lopez, 215 Cal.App.4th 1385 (Cal.App.4th 2013) (last antecedent rule; interpretation of broad phrases)
- People v. Cornett, 53 Cal.4th 1261 (Cal.4th 2012) (extrinsic aids in interpreting ambiguous statutes)
- Xiloj-Itzep v. City of Agoura Hills, 24 Cal.App.4th 620 (Cal.App.4th 1994) (distinguishes applicability of 22520.5 to local ordinances)