People v. Sanchez

211 Cal. App. 3d 477, 259 Cal. Rptr. 294, 1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 617, 1989 WL 63853
California Court of Appeal·Decided May 24, 1989·No. H004603·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Opinion

AGLIANO, P. J.

Pursuant to Penal Code section 1238, subdivision (a)(8) 1 , the People appeal from the trial court’s order dismissing the information charging defendant Benigno Zamora Sanchez in count III with possession of a concealable firearm by a person previously convicted of assault with a deadly weapon or force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 12021.1). 2 For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the order of dismissal.

Since the facts relating to the offense are not relevant to any issue presented on appeal, we need not review them.

Mootness

Defendant contends this appeal is moot because the underlying pri- or conviction has, in the interim, been declared invalid. Count III of the information charged that defendant was in violation of section 12021.1 in that on October 22, 1987, he was in possession of various concealable firearms, he having suffered a prior conviction of a violent offense, to wit, assault with a deadly weapon or force likely to produce great bodily injury. (§ 245, subd. (a).) On May 25, 1988, the superior court granted defendant’s *480 petition for writ of habeas corpus, declaring the prior conviction of section 245, subdivision (a) invalid because defendant had not been advised of the possibility of deportation as a result of his plea of nolo contendere. (§ 1016.5, subd. (a); see also Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 [23 L.Ed.2d 274, 89 S.Ct. 1709]; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122 [81 Cal.Rptr. 577, 460 P.2d 449].) The People did not appeal this order. The order does not alter the fact, however, that defendant stood convicted of the crime when he possessed the firearms.

In People v. Harty (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 493 [219 Cal.Rptr. 85], the defendant entered a plea of guilty to, inter alia, possession of a concealable firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony (§ 12021) on condition that the trial court find the alleged prior conviction to be true. The defendant’s motion to strike the prior conviction on Boykin-Tahl grounds was denied. The reviewing court held that a subsequently determined invalidity of the underlying prior felony conviction was not a defense to possession of a concealable weapon by a felon (§ 12021), observing that “[i]n analogous circumstances, California courts have repeatedly held that defendants charged with crimes based on their prisoner status may be convicted of such offenses notwithstanding the invalidity of the conviction upon which the prisoner status was based. [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 499.) The Harty court relied on Lewis v. United States (1980) 445 U.S. 55 [63 L.Ed.2d 198, 100 S.Ct. 915], in which the United States Supreme Court interpreted a federal statute similar to section 12021 and held that the statute prohibited a previously convicted felon from possessing a firearm even though his prior conviction had been obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. “ ‘The federal gun laws, however, focus not on reliability, but on the mere fact of conviction, or even indictment, in order to keep firearms away from potentially dangerous persons. Congress’ judgment that a convicted felon, even one whose conviction was allegedly uncounseled, is among the class of persons who should be disabled from dealing in or possessing firearms because of potential dangerousness is rational.’ [Citations.]” (I d. at pp. 499-500.)

Similarly the violation of section 12021.1 here is based on defendant’s membership in a class of persons who are unable to legally possess firearms and thus the subsequent invalidity of the underlying prior conviction provides no defense to the instant charges.

People v. Norton (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d Supp.14 [146 Cal.Rptr. 343], upon which defendant relies, is distinguishable. In that case, the court held that in a prosecution for a violation of section 12021 where the defendant challenges the validity of the prior felony conviction, the People must prove the defendant was represented by counsel in the prior case or that he or she *481 waived that right. (Id. at p. 24.) No such challenge has been made in the instant case. Further, People v. McGinnis (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 613 [57 Cal.Rptr. 661], also cited by defendant, concluded the underlying prior conviction was valid and thus did not reach the specific issue raised here.

Right of Appeal

Defendant contends the People have no right to appeal in the instant case because the trial court’s dismissal of count III was an acquittal. At issue then is whether the “hearing” of April 6, 1988, was a court trial or a hearing on a section 995 motion.

Defendant made a section 995 motion which was denied on February 17, 1988. He later waived his right to a jury trial solely on count II. On April 6, 1988, the date set for trial, the proceedings began with the following exchange: The court: “[U]nless you take exception to this, that the motions before the Court at this time . . . the first motion would be a motion to strike the prior? [fl] [Defense Counsel]: That’s right. []J] The Court: And then, then there also would be a motion as a 995 concerning the 12021—[][] [Defense Counsel]: 1.” The People did not present any evidence at the “hearing.” After defendant finished his argument, the court responded as follows: “Well, it’s not a question of finding the Defendant guilty or not, it’s really a 995 motion as to whether there’s evidence enough—or whether this motion should be considered. Okay, give me about ten minutes and I’ll be back. []f] (Recess accordingly, 11:35 to 11:45 a.m.) [][] The Court: The Court has considered all the documents filed in this matter and has reviewed the various sections, and is under the impression that the Legislature was not contemplating misdemeanor [s/c] under this section, therefore grants the 995.”

The record establishes there was no court trial on count III and thus this appeal is authorized under section 1238, subdivision (a)(8), as an appeal taken from an order dismissing an action before jeopardy has attached.

Statutory Construction

Defendant was charged with possession of a concealable firearm by a person previously convicted of assault with a deadly weapon or force *482 likely to produce great bodily injury. (§ 12021.1, subd. (b)(24).) 3 Assault with a deadly weapon or force likely to produce great bodily injury may be charged or punished as either a felony or a misdemeanor. (§§ 17, subd. (b), 245, subd. (a)(1).) In the instant case, defendant was convicted of a misdemeanor violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(1).

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

People v. Sanchez, 211 Cal. App. 3d 477, 259 Cal. Rptr. 294, 1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 617, 1989 WL 63853 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989).

211 Cal. App. 3d 477 (People v. Sanchez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Mosley CA3
California Court of Appeal, 2023
People v. Williams
California Court of Appeal, 2016
People v. Williams
199 Cal. Rptr. 3d 755 (California Court of Appeals, 2nd District, 2016)
People v. Perez
California Court of Appeal, 2015
People v. Sanders
288 P.3d 83 (California Supreme Court, 2012)
In Re Watford
186 Cal. App. 4th 684 (California Court of Appeal, 2010)
People v. Jones
124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 10 (California Court of Appeal, 2002)
People v. Booker
21 Cal. App. 4th 1517 (California Court of Appeal, 1994)
People v. Hopkins
10 Cal. App. 4th 1699 (California Court of Appeal, 1992)