Velasquez v. Superior Court
174 Cal. Rptr. 3d 541
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- On April 1, 2013, Jorge Velasquez, Jr., riding a fixed-gear bicycle with no brakes and with a blood alcohol content of .218, struck pedestrian Sudha Russell, causing serious injuries.
- The People charged Velasquez with reckless driving causing specified injury under Vehicle Code §§ 23103 and 23105 (felony), statutes in Division 11 (Rules of the Road).
- Vehicle Code § 670 defines “vehicle” to exclude devices moved exclusively by human power (e.g., bicycles), which Velasquez argued precluded prosecuting him under the reckless-driving statute.
- The People relied on Vehicle Code § 21200, which makes bicyclists "subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle," to support charging a bicyclist under Division 11 offenses.
- The trial court denied Velasquez’s motions to dismiss and to set aside the information; he sought a writ of prohibition challenging application of §§ 23103/23105 to bicyclists.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a bicyclist may be charged with recklessly driving a "vehicle" under § 23103 given § 670's exclusion of bicycles | Velasquez: § 670 excludes bicycles from definition of "vehicle," so § 23103 does not apply | People: § 21200 makes bicyclists subject to all provisions applicable to drivers, including § 23103 | Court: § 21200 (specific to bicyclists) controls and makes bicyclists subject to Division 11 offenses; conviction may be charged under §§ 23103/23105 |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Horn v. Watson, 45 Cal.4th 322 (interpretive principles: ascertain legislative intent and harmonize statutes)
- People v. Ahmed, 53 Cal.4th 156 (specific statute prevails over general statute on same subject)
- Clingenpeel v. Municipal Court, 108 Cal.App.3d 394 (1980) (earlier decision holding § 21200 did not subject bicyclists to certain criminal sanctions)
- People v. Fong, 17 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 (1993) (legislature intended bicycles to be subject to same road rules as motor vehicles)
- People v. King, 38 Cal.4th 617 (2006) (can consider legislative history when statutory language is susceptible to multiple interpretations)
- People v. Calderon, 214 Cal.App.4th 656 (2013) (reference on interaction of specific and general statutes)