60 Cal.App.5th 115
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background:
- Defendant Alonzo Taylor was convicted in 1999–2000 of Penal Code §4573.6 (possession of a controlled substance in prison) and conspiracy to commit that offense; he later sought relief under Health & Safety Code §11361.8 (postjudgment petitions under Prop 64).
- Proposition 64 (2016) added H&S §11362.1 (making certain possession of small amounts of cannabis lawful for adults 21+) and §11362.45(d) (stating §11362.1 does not amend/repeal laws “pertaining to smoking or ingesting” cannabis in penal institutions).
- Taylor argued Prop 64 decriminalized possession of ≤28.5 grams of cannabis even inside prison, so his §4573.6 and conspiracy convictions should be dismissed under §11361.8.
- The People maintained possession in prison and conspiracy to possess in prison remain offenses under §4573.6 despite Prop 64; the trial court denied Taylor’s motions and he appealed.
- The Court of Appeal resolved statutory-construction questions: (1) whether cannabis remains a Division 10 controlled substance for purposes of §4573.6, and (2) whether §11362.45(d)’s reference to laws “pertaining to smoking or ingesting” encompasses possession prohibitions in custodial settings. The court affirmed the denial of relief.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Taylor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Prop 64 decriminalized possession of ≤28.5g cannabis in prison so §4573.6 no longer applies | §11362.1’s decriminalization is subject to §11362.45(d); possession in prison remains prosecutable under §4573.6 | Prop 64 made possession of small amounts lawful generally, so possession in prison by an adult 21+ is not a Division 10 prohibition and not punishable under §4573.6 | Held: Cannabis remains a controlled substance for §4573.6 purposes; §11362.45(d) preserves prison-related prohibitions, so §4573.6 still applies |
| How to interpret the phrase “any controlled substance, the possession of which is prohibited by Division 10” in §4573.6 | Phrase denotes the general category of controlled substances whose possession Division 10 prohibits in any relevant way; not limited to a particular instance | Echoing Fenton/Raybon, defendant says phrase imports Division 10’s instance-specific prohibitions (so exceptions in Division 10 negate the prison offense) | Held: Phrase describes the general category (not one particular possession instance); avoids absurd results and harmonizes related statutes |
| Whether §11362.45(d)’s “laws pertaining to smoking or ingesting” includes possession prohibitions in prisons | The phrase is broad; laws criminalizing possession in custodial settings are part of the prophylactic scheme that prevents smoking/ingesting and thus fall within §11362.45(d) | The text omits the word “possession,” so the exception covers only consumption methods (smoking/ingesting), not possession; if voters meant possession they would have said so | Held: The word “pertaining” is broad; §11362.45(d) includes laws governing possession in custodial settings and thus preserves pre-Prop 64 prison prohibitions |
| Whether Taylor is entitled to dismissal under §11361.8 | People argued he did not meet §11361.8 because the underlying offenses remain crimes after Prop 64 | Taylor argued he would not have been guilty had Prop 64 been in effect and requested remand for the §11361.8 public-safety inquiry | Held: Taylor is not entitled to relief under §11361.8 because §4573.6 and related possession prohibitions remain in force for custodial settings; court affirmed denial |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Fenton, 20 Cal.App.4th 965 (1993) (Third Dist.) (construed prison-possession statute to import Division 10 prescription exception in factual context)
- People v. Raybon, 36 Cal.App.5th 111 (2019) (Third Dist.) (held Prop 64 decriminalized possession ≤1 oz in prison; court of appeal split cited)
- People v. Perry, 32 Cal.App.5th 885 (2019) (1st Dist.) (concluded Prop 64 did not decriminalize possession in penal institutions; §11362.45(d) preserves prison prohibitions)
- People v. Herrera, 52 Cal.App.5th 982 (2020) (6th Dist.) (this court previously held Prop 64 did not decriminalize possession in jail/prison)
- People v. Whalum, 50 Cal.App.5th 1 (2020) (4th Dist.) (held prison possession statutes remain effective post-Prop 64)
- People v. Low, 49 Cal.4th 372 (2010) (California Supreme Court) (discussed purpose of penal contraband statutes and prophylactic approach)
- People v. Leal, 64 Cal.2d 504 (1966) (California Supreme Court) (possession requires usable quantity; traces insufficient)