People v. Raybon
248 Cal. Rptr. 3d 611
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2019Background
- Five inmates convicted under Penal Code §4573.6 (possession of controlled substances in prison) sought relief under Proposition 64 (Health & Safety Code §11361.8) after Prop. 64 decriminalized possession of ≤1 ounce of cannabis for adults 21+.
- Penal Code §4573.6 criminalizes possession in prison of “any controlled substances, the possession of which is prohibited by Division 10” of the Health & Safety Code.
- Proposition 64 (Health & Safety Code §11362.1) states possession of small amounts of cannabis is lawful “notwithstanding any other provision of law.”
- Prop. 64 also contains carve-outs ( §11362.45) preserving certain laws; subdivision (d) preserves “laws pertaining to smoking or ingesting cannabis … within … facilities under the Department of Corrections,” but does not expressly preserve prison possession bans.
- The Attorney General urged statutory‑construction rules and public‑policy arguments to avoid applying the plain text; defendants argued Prop. 64 removed the Division 10 prohibition for small amounts and thus §4573.6 no longer criminalized such possession in prison.
- The trial courts denied relief; the appellate court reviewed de novo whether applying the statute’s plain language would produce an absurd result and reversed, granting the petitions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (AG) | Defendant's Argument (Inmates) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Prop. 64’s decriminalization of possession ≤1 oz. removes the Division 10 prohibition so §4573.6 no longer forbids small‑amount possession in prison | The Division 10 reference still covers cannabis in some contexts; using canons of construction, the Division 10 language should be read to keep prison possession criminalized | Prop. 64’s plain text ("notwithstanding any other provision of law") decriminalizes possession ≤1 oz.; §11362.45(d) excludes only smoking/ingesting in prisons, not possession | Held: Prop. 64 amended Division 10 as to small amounts; §4573.6 no longer criminalizes possession of ≤1 oz. in prison. |
| Whether the phrase "pertaining to smoking or ingesting" in §11362.45(d) includes possession | "Pertaining to" is broad and can encompass possession for prison regulation purposes | The drafters elsewhere expressly distinguished possession from smoking/ingesting; if they meant to preserve possession they would have said so | Held: "Pertaining to" is not an implicit preservation of possession; the text preserves consumption, not possession. |
| Whether applying the plain text would lead to an absurd result (allowing smuggling, undermining prison security) | Plain application creates absurd policy outcomes—undermines prophylactic purpose of §4573 et seq., weakens deterrence, complicates enforcement | Policy concerns do not create a textual ambiguity; institutional rules can still forbid and discipline possession even if criminal sanctions are removed | Held: The predicted policy harms do not constitute the type of absurdity permitting courts to override clear statutory language. |
| Whether controlling precedent (Fenton, Harris, Low) supports construing §4573.6 to incorporate Division 10 exceptions (e.g., medical prescriptions or decriminalization) | AG urged distinguishing or overruling Fenton and similar cases | Defendants relied on Fenton and Harris as directly on point and controlling | Held: Fenton and Harris remain controlling; their plain‑language approach applies and supports relief; Low did not undermine that precedent. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Fenton, 20 Cal.App.4th 965 (1993) (applied plain‑text importation of Division 10 exceptions into prison possession statutes; prescription exception allowed)
- People v. Harris, 145 Cal.App.4th 1456 (2006) (medical marijuana possession in custody analyzed under Division 10 reference and plain language; rejected rewriting statute)
- People v. Low, 49 Cal.4th 372 (2010) (discussed purpose of §4573 series but did not alter Division 10 interpretive approach)
- People v. Gutierrez, 52 Cal.App.4th 380 (1997) (construing the §4573 family of statutes together to effect their different targets)
- People v. Perry, 32 Cal.App.5th 885 (2019) (contrasting interpretation reached by other panel; noted by the court but not followed here)