People v. Neely

22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 274, 124 Cal. App. 4th 1258, 2004 Daily Journal DAR 14831, 2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10961, 2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 2141
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedDecember 14, 2004
DocketB173338
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 274 (People v. Neely) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Neely, 22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 274, 124 Cal. App. 4th 1258, 2004 Daily Journal DAR 14831, 2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10961, 2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 2141 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

Opinion

GRIGNON, Acting P. J.

In March 2000, the voters approved Proposition 21, the Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act of 1998, which among other changes, added to the list of serious felonies, “intimidation of victims or witnesses, in violation of [Penal Code s]ection 136.1.” (Pen. Code, § 1192.7, subd. (c)(37).) Penal Code section 136.1 is unofficially entitled “Intimidation of witnesses and victims,” and includes various offenses, but includes no offense of which “intimidation” is an element. Subdivisions (a) and (b) of Penal Code section 136.1 require that a defendant knowingly and maliciously prevent or dissuade or attempt to prevent or dissuade a victim or witness from reporting or testifying. These offenses are wobblers. Subdivision (c)(1) of Penal Code section 136.1 adds force or an express or implied threat of force or violence as an element. Subdivision (c)(1) offenses are felonies punishable by two, three or four years in state prison. The question is whether all felony violations of Penal Code section 136.1 are serious felonies or only violations of subdivision (c)(1). We conclude that all felony violations of Penal Code section 136.1 are “serious felonies” within the meaning of Penal Code section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(37). Accordingly, we affirm defendant’s conviction of a violation of Penal Code section 136.1, subdivision (a)(2) as a serious felony and the imposition of a five-year enhancement for a prior serious felony conviction pursuant to Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a).

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant and appellant James Ricardo Neely was charged by information with 11 counts, including stalking (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (b)), domestic violence (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)), false imprisonment (Pen. Code, § 236), felony attempt to dissuade a victim or witness from testifying (Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (a)(2), contempt (Pen. Code, § 166, subd. (a)(4)), and criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422). The offenses occurred in the latter half of 2002 and the victim was defendant’s wife. After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of stalking, felony attempt to dissuade a victim or witness from testifying, and five counts of contempt. Defendant admitted a prior serious felony conviction allegation (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12, 667, subd. (a)) and three prior prison term allegations (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court concluded a felony violation of Penal Code section 136.1, subdivision (a)(2) was a serious felony within the meaning of Penal Code section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(37). Defendant was sentenced to the middle term of *1262 two years, doubled, plus five years, plus three years for a total of twelve years in state prison. Defendant appealed.

DISCUSSION

Serious Felonies

“[Penal Code] section 1192.7, subdivision (c) enumerates those felony violations that constitute serious felonies under California law. Where a defendant has been convicted of a serious felony, reoffending may result in severe consequences: certain prior serious felony convictions are strikes under the Three Strikes Law [citations], and all prior serious felony convictions subject a defendant to an additional five-year sentence enhancement if the current offense is a serious felony. [Citation.] [1] The electorate, in passing Proposition 21, added several new felony violations to the list of serious felonies in [Penal Code] section 1192.7, subdivision (c), including” (People v. Briceno (2004) 34 Cal.4th 451, 458 [20 Cal.Rptr.3d 418, 99 P.3d 1007]) Penal Code section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(37) which makes “intimidation of victims or witnesses, in violation of [Penal Code s]ection 136.1” a serious felony. Proposition 21 “revise[d] the lists of specific crimes defined as serious or violent offenses, thus making most of them subject to the longer sentence provisions of existing law related to serious and violent felonies.” (Ballot Pamp., Primary Elec. (Mar. 7, 2000) p. 47.) 1 In this case, we are asked to interpret the scope of Penal Code section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(37).

Statutory Construction

“ ‘In interpreting a voter initiative ... we apply the same principles that govern statutory construction. [Citation.] Thus, “we turn first to the language of the statute, giving the words their ordinary meaning.” [Citation.] The statutory language must also be construed in the context of the statute as a whole and the overall statutory scheme [in light of the electorate’s intent]. [Citation.] When the language is ambiguous, “we refer to other indicia of the voters’ intent, particularly the analyses and arguments contained in the official ballot pamphlet.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.] In other words, ‘our primary purpose is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the voters who passed the initiative measure.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Briceno, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 459.) “ ‘Statutory language should not be interpreted in isolation, but must be construed in the context of the entire statute of which it is a part, in order to achieve harmony among the parts.’ ” (Ibid.) A reference to an entire section of a statute demonstrates the voters’ intent to encompass the entire section, because the electorate has shown that it knows how to require the violation of a specific subdivision of a statute if that is its intent. (See id. at p. 462.)

*1263 Proposition 21

Proposition 21 amended, repealed and added sections to the Penal Code and the Welfare and Institutions Code, including Penal Code sections 186.22, 667.5, and 1192.7, and Welfare and Institutions Code section 707. Each of these sections includes references to Penal Code section 136.1.

Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 concerns the unfitness of certain juveniles to be treated as juveniles. Subdivision (b) sets forth a list of offenses for which certain juveniles will be presumed unfit to be adjudicated as juveniles. Prior to the enactment of Proposition 21, the statute included in the list of Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (b) offenses, “[a]ny felony offense described in [Penal Code sjection 136.1 . . . .” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707, subd. (b)(19).) The Legislature added subdivision (b)(19) to the list in 1982. Proposition 21 reenacted Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 without changing this subdivision.

Penal Code section 186.22 concerns gang offenses and gang enhancements. Prior to Proposition 21, the section contained two references to Penal Code section 136.1. Subdivision (b)(5) of Penal Code section 186.22 provided an enhancement if defendants convicted of gang-related offenses were “also convicted of a felony violation of [Penal Code] section 136.1, which violation is accompanied by a credible threat of violence or death made to the victim or witness to a violent felony. . .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Lopez CA1/1
California Court of Appeal, 2022
People v. Barragan CA2/2
California Court of Appeal, 2020
People v. Covington CA5
California Court of Appeal, 2020
Hipsher v. Los Angeles County Employees etc.
California Court of Appeal, 2018
Hipsher v. L. A. Cnty. Emps. Ret. Ass'n
234 Cal. Rptr. 3d 564 (California Court of Appeals, 5th District, 2018)
People v. Perry CA4/2
California Court of Appeal, 2016
People v. Ybarra CA4/1
California Court of Appeal, 2015
People v. Dukes CA2/5
California Court of Appeal, 2015
People v. Rosales CA2/2
California Court of Appeal, 2014
People v. Zubia CA4/2
California Court of Appeal, 2014
People v. Johnson
California Court of Appeal, 2014
People v. Vicente CA4/2
California Court of Appeal, 2014
People v. Scott CA6
California Court of Appeal, 2014
People v. DeJesus CA4/2
California Court of Appeal, 2014
People v. Anaya
California Court of Appeal, 2013
The People v. Anaya CA5
California Court of Appeal, 2013
The People v. Silva CA6
California Court of Appeal, 2013
P. v. Yun CA2/1
California Court of Appeal, 2013

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 274, 124 Cal. App. 4th 1258, 2004 Daily Journal DAR 14831, 2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10961, 2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 2141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-neely-calctapp-2004.