History
  • No items yet
midpage
36 Cal.App.5th 111
Cal. Ct. App.
2019
Read the full case

Background

  • Five inmates (Raybon, Cooper, Davis, Haynes, Potter) convicted under Penal Code § 4573.6 for possession of cannabis in prison petitioned for relief under Proposition 64 (Health & Safety Code § 11361.8), which allows resentencing/dismissal for certain cannabis convictions.
  • Penal Code § 4573.6 criminalizes possession in state prison of “any controlled substances, the possession of which is prohibited by Division 10” (Health & Safety Code, Div. 10).
  • Proposition 64 (Health & Safety Code § 11362.1) decriminalized possession of small amounts of cannabis (≤28.5 grams) "notwithstanding any other provision of law," but preserved certain exceptions (e.g., smoking/ingesting in correctional facilities) in § 11362.45.
  • Defendants argued § 11362.1 removed cannabis (≤1 ounce) from the Division 10 prohibitions, so § 4573.6 no longer criminalizes possession of that amount in prison; the trial court denied petitions.
  • The Attorney General argued the Division 10 reference still imports criminality in prison (via syntactic canons, the § 11362.45 "pertaining to" language, and public‑policy/absurdity arguments).
  • Court of Appeal reviewed the statutory text de novo, rejected the AG’s construction and policy arguments, and reversed, directing trial courts to grant relief under § 11361.8(a).

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether Proposition 64’s decriminalization of small‑amount cannabis removes the Division 10 prohibition for purposes of Penal Code § 4573.6 AG: Division 10 still prohibits cannabis in some contexts; § 4573.6 imports that prohibition into prison so possession remains felony Defs: § 11362.1 removed possession of ≤28.5g from Division 10 prohibitions; § 4573.6 thus no longer criminalizes such possession in prison Held: Yes — plain text shows Division 10 no longer prohibits small amounts, so § 4573.6 does not criminalize possession of less than an ounce in prison; relief granted
Whether the “nearest‑reasonable‑referent” canon or other syntactic rules require reading possession in prison as still banned AG: Modifier attaches only to nearest noun; because Division 10 still prohibits cannabis in some circumstances, § 4573.6 should be read to ban possession in prison Defs: Canon cannot be used to override plain meaning; § 4573.6 limits criminality to substances still prohibited by Division 10 Held: Rejected AG; canon does not change the clear import of the statutory words — plain meaning controls
Whether § 11362.45(d) (“pertaining to smoking or ingesting …”) preserves criminality of possession in prisons AG: “Pertaining to” expands the exception to include possession Defs: The drafters used distinct language when they meant possession; omission is meaningful Held: Rejected AG; "pertaining to" covers modes of consumption (including nontraditional forms) but does not covertly retain possession as a felony
Whether applying the plain text produces an absurd result warranting judicial avoidance AG: Decriminalizing small‑amount possession in prison undermines prison safety, creates enforcement issues, and is absurd Defs: Policy concerns belong to Legislature/voters; institutional rules can deter contraband without criminal sanctions Held: Not absurd; policy disagreements do not justify rewriting the initiative; institutional discipline remains available

Key Cases Cited

  • People v. Fenton, 20 Cal.App.4th 965 (court applied Division 10 exceptions to penal statutes and rejected AG’s absurdity argument)
  • People v. Harris, 145 Cal.App.4th 1456 (held medical marijuana authorization could negate penal prohibitions referencing Division 10)
  • People v. Gutierrez, 52 Cal.App.4th 380 (discussed prophylactic purpose of Penal Code § 4573 series and statutory construction together)
  • People v. Low, 49 Cal.4th 372 (supreme court case acknowledged context but did not alter Fenton’s analysis)
  • People v. Perry, 32 Cal.App.5th 885 (contrasting appellate decision adopting AG’s position; court here declined to follow it)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: People v. Raybon
Court Name: California Court of Appeal
Date Published: Jun 11, 2019
Citations: 36 Cal.App.5th 111; 248 Cal.Rptr.3d 611; C084853
Docket Number: C084853
Court Abbreviation: Cal. Ct. App.
Log In
    People v. Raybon, 36 Cal.App.5th 111