People v. Mejia

85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 690, 72 Cal. App. 4th 1269, 99 Daily Journal DAR 5951, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4675, 1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 577

• Court: California Court of Appeal
• Decided: June 11, 1999
• Docket: G022388
• Status: Published

Opinions

Opinion

RYLAARSDAM, J.

Rene Mejia appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm within a school zone. (Pen. Code, § 626.9; all further statutory references are to the Penal Code.) He claims the trial court misinstructed the jury on what constitutes possession within a school zone. (§ 626.9, subd. (e)(1).) We conclude the court’s instructions were correct and affirm the judgment of conviction.

Facts

Police officers observed defendant’s stopped vehicle facing the wrong direction on Western between Wisteria and Highland. The center of Western demarcates a 1,000-foot perimeter surrounding the Monte Vista School.

The officers initiated a traffic stop. Defendant, the driver and sole occupant of the car, did not yield, but jumped out of his moving vehicle and fled. He was apprehended a short distance away from the car. During the pursuit, an officer saw a shiny metal object in his hand. He retraced defendant’s steps and located a .380-caliber handgun.

At trial, defense and prosecution experts testified extensively about various measurements of the area surrounding Monte Vista School. Despite the differences in their testimony, defendant concedes at least part of his car was within 1,000 feet of a school at the time the officers first saw him.

Discussion

During deliberations, the court received the following question from the jury: “Does it matter where the gun is in the car, where the person is in the car, where the car is. Could part of the car be inside 1000 ft., and part of the car be outside 1000 ft.; if so where is the possession?” The court responded that it did not matter where within the car defendant or the gun was located, as long as the jury determined at least part of the car was within the 1,000-foot perimeter. We conclude the trial court’s response to the jury’s question was correct.

Former section 626.9 prohibited, with certain exceptions, gun possession on school grounds. In 1994, the Legislature enacted the “Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995” to expand the scope of section 626.9 to include gun possession within a “school zone.” (Stats. 1994, ch. 1015.) A school zone is defined by the statute as “an area in, or on the grounds of, a public or private school . . . and within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of the public or private school.” (§ 626.9, subd. (e)(1).)

Defendant argues the trial court’s response constitutes an erroneous interpretation of section 626.9 because the term “within” should be interpreted to require actual physical possession of a gun wholly within 1,000 feet of a school. “ ‘[I]n construing a statute, a court [must] ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law.’ [Citation.] In determining that intent, we first examine the words of the respective statutes: ‘If there is no ambiguity in the language of the statute, “then the Legislature is presumed to have meant what it said and the plain meaning of the language governs.” [Citation.]’ ” (People v. Coronado (1995) 12 Cal.4th 145, 151 [48 Cal.Rptr.2d 77, 906 P.2d 1232].) Further, the words must be “ ‘read in context, considering the nature and purpose of the statutory enactment.’ [Citation.]” (Torres v. Automobile Club of So. California (1997) 15 Cal.4th 771, 777 [63 Cal.Rptr.2d 859, 937 P.2d 290].)

The term “within” generally connotes something inside, or contained in the inner portion. (See Webster’s New Internat. Diet. (3d ed. 1981) p. 2627.) Thus, under the plain meaning of the language, section 626.9 prohibits gun possession 1,000 feet or less from school property. However, reading the language in context and consistent with the Legislative intent, the facts before us are sufficient to find defendant violated the statute.

First, a car partially within the school zone is a car wholly within the school zone for purposes of the statute. It is a situation analogous to officers discovering a suspect straddling the 1,000-foot perimeter line. Just as one may not sever a portion of his or her body to escape prosecution, defendant may not sever his car into parts and declare half outside the school zone. Under this commonsense application of the statutory language, even the circumstantial evidence presented here is sufficient to sustain the conviction.

Further, defendant fails to acknowledge the two types of possession applicable under law. One may have either actual or constructive possession of any article. The latter is established by showing a knowing exercise of dominion and control over an item. (People v. Rogers (1971) 5 Cal.3d 129, 134 [95 Cal.Rptr. 601, 486 P.2d 129]; People v. Showers (1968) 68 Cal.2d 639, 644 [68 Cal.Rptr. 459, 440 P.2d 939].) As the driver and sole occupant of the car, and the only person seen carrying a gun from the scene, defendant had possession of the gun in his car. We presume the Legislature intended prosecution under the statute for both types of possession since no contrary intention is apparent. (See Torres v. Automobile Club of So. California, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 779.) The trial court correctly told the jury to determine if the evidence supported a finding that a portion of defendant’s car was within 1,000 feet of the school and he possessed a gun.

Disposition

The judgment is affirmed.

Sills, P. J., concurred.