THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GERMAN SANCHEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
H047350
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Filed 6/30/21
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION; (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. C1898343)
The police stopped Sanchez while he was driving a pickup truck with methamphetamine in the cab of the truck. In the open bed of the truck, police found a loaded .22-caliber rifle inside a bag that was partially covered by a board. Sanchez contends the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for possession of a controlled substance while armed with a loaded firearm. He argues the evidence failed to prove the firearm was “available for immediate offensive or defensive use” as required under
Based on the plain meaning of the term “immediate,” we hold the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that the firearm was available for immediate use because Sanchez could not have used it without exiting the cab of the truck, retrieving the bag from under the board in the truck bed, and taking the gun out of the bag. These actions would have required too much delay for the gun to be “available for immediate offensive or defensive use” as defined by the statute. We will reverse the judgment.
A. Procedural Background
The prosecution charged Sanchez with three counts: Count 1—possession of a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun (
The case proceeded to trial in May 2019. The jury found Sanchez not guilty on count 1, but guilty on counts 2 and 3. The trial court granted a three-year term of probation to include four months in county jail.
B. Facts of the Offense
The police stopped Sanchez while he was driving a truck with an obscured license plate and nonfunctioning brake lights. Officers found 0.55 grams of methamphetamine in the cab of the truck.
In the open bed of the truck, the police saw a piece of cardboard or wooden board partially covering a plastic bag. The bag contained a .22-caliber Winchester rifle. The officer who found the rifle testified that he could easily reach into the bed and grab the bag while standing next to the truck. He testified that he was five feet and nine inches tall, and he estimated that Sanchez was about five feet and six or seven inches tall. There was a round of ammunition in the rifle, and although the gun was rusted, a criminalist determined it was operational and could be fired.
II. DISCUSSION
Sanchez contends the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for possession of a controlled substance while armed with a firearm. He argues the evidence did not show the firearm was available for immediate defensive or offensive use. The Attorney General contends the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
A. Legal Principles
“Issues of statutory interpretation are questions of law subject to de novo review. [Citation.] ‘Our fundamental task in interpreting a statute is to determine the Legislature‘s intent so as to effectuate the law‘s purpose. We first examine the statutory language, giving it a plain and commonsense meaning. We do not examine that language in isolation, but in the context of the statutory framework as a whole in order to determine its scope and purpose and to harmonize the various parts of the enactment. If the language is clear, courts must generally follow its plain meaning unless a literal interpretation would result in absurd consequences the Legislature did not intend.‘” (People v. Simmons (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 778, 790.)
B. The Evidence Was Insufficient to Support the Conviction
Sanchez contends the evidence was insufficient to show the rifle was available for immediate offensive or defensive use. He points out that the rifle was inside a bag partially covered by a board in the bed of the truck, such that he would have to get out of the truck, walk to the bed, reach into the bed, lift the board, and take the rifle out of the bag before using the gun.
Sanchez argues that the plain meaning of the word “immediate” requires that there be no delay or intervening lapse of time before the gun can be used. He relies on common dictionary definitions of that word. (See Wasatch Property Management v. Degrate (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1111, 1121-1122 [to ascertain the ordinary, usual meaning of a word, courts appropriately refer to the dictionary definition].) For example,
The Attorney General contends the gun was available for immediate use because Sanchez merely had to step out of the truck and reach over the side of the bed to access the rifle, which was loaded and operable. But even if those facts could satisfy the immediacy requirement, the gun in this case was also inside a bag that was partially covered by a board.
The Attorney General relies on People v. Searle (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1091. In Searle, the trial court at sentencing found as an aggravating factor that Searle was armed when he sold cocaine from his car because he had a pistol stored in an unlocked compartment in the back of the car. (Id. at pp. 1095-1099.) But Searle predated the enactment of the statutory definition at issue here, and the gun in that case was more readily available to the defendant than the gun in this case because it was located within the interior of the car and did not require him to step out of the car to access it.
The Attorney General also relies on People v. Bland (1995) 10 Cal.4th 991 (Bland). In Bland, the California Supreme Court considered the meaning of the phrase “armed with a firearm in the commission” of a felony—the arming enhancement defined in
Based on the plain meaning of the term “immediate,” we conclude the gun was not available for immediate offensive or defensive use as defined in
III. DISPOSITION
We reverse the conviction on count 2 and remand to the trial court for resentencing. In all other respects, we reverse the judgment.
Greenwood, P.J.
WE CONCUR:
Grover, J.
Danner, J.
People v. Sanchez
No. H047350
Trial Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court
Superior Court No.: C1898343
Trial Judges: The Honorable Thang Nguyen Barrett
The Honorable Sharon A. Chatman
The Honorable Edward Frederick Lee
Attorney for Defendant and Appellant German Sanchez: Teresa Marie Biagini under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Appellant
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Respondent The People: Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California; Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General; Michael P. Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Eric L. Christoffersen, Supervising Deputy Attorney General; Robert Collins Nash, Deputy Attorney General
People v. Sanchez
H047350