People v. Chenze
Citation | 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 362,97 Cal.App.4th 521 |
Decision Date | 14 March 2002 |
Docket Number | No. G027398.,G027398. |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Steven Allen CHENZE, Defendant and Appellant. |
Butler, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Steven Allen Chenze appeals his felony conviction for battery on a custodial officer under Penal Code section 243.1.1 He contends section 243.1 was impliedly repealed by an amendment to section 243, which provides that a battery on a custodial officer is a misdemeanor (§ 243, subd. (b)); but if injury is inflicted, it may be sentenced as a misdemeanor or a felony (§ 243, subd. (c)(1)). He also complains the evidence was insufficient, the jury instructions were inadequate, and his counsel was incompetent. We reject his contentions and affirm.
Chenze was arrested on drug charges and held at the Anaheim Police Department jail. While being transported to court, he "head-butted" one of the custodial officers.
The victim, Donald Briggs, did not testify at trial because he was out of town on vacation. Andrew Gaydos, another custodial officer at the jail, testified for the prosecution. Gaydos was the transportation officer responsible for getting Chenze to court. He testified that Briggs was also a custodial officer at the Anaheim jail and their duties involved booking, custody and movement of prisoners in the jail.
Gaydos and several other officers, including Briggs and Anaheim Police Officer Kyle Bernard, were involved in moving Chenze through the jail. They went to Chenze's cell, told him he was going to be transported to court, handcuffed him and began to walk him through the facility. While the officers were moving Chenze through the area where the gun lockers were located, Chenze pulled away from the officers and tried to pull a key out of a gun locker with his teeth. After subduing him, the officers began to place him in the car. As Chenze began to sit down on the seat, he bounced up and hit Briggs in the face with his head, causing Briggs a small bump but no serious injury.
The defense presented testimony of a psychologist about the symptoms of heroin withdrawal. The witness had not reviewed any of the police reports or examined Chenze.
Bernard testified on rebuttal that Gaydos and Briggs were both custodial officers at the Anaheim jail. Neither carried weapons and both were in uniform at the time. He confirmed Gaydos's version of the events. Although he did not actually see Chenze's head make contact with Briggs's head, he saw a scuffle and heard a commotion, after which Briggs stood up rubbing his forehead.
In closing argument, defense counsel conceded there was "no question that there was a head butt." The only issue was whether Chenze was acting in self-defense. Counsel argued Chenze was in the midst of heroin withdrawal at the time of the offense and subjectively believed he was being mistreated by the officers.
Counts 1 and 2 of the amended information charged Chenze with possession of a controlled substance. Count 3 charged him with violating section 243.1 ( ). A prior prison term was alleged for enhancement purposes under section 667.5, subdivision (b) and allegations of two prior serious or violent felony convictions made this a Three Strikes case. (§§ 667, subds.(d), (e)(2); 1170.12, subds. (b), (c)(2).)
At trial, counsel for Chenze requested that as to count 3 the jury be instructed on the "lesser included" misdemeanor under section 243, subdivision (b). The trial court apparently agreed felony treatment under section 243, subdivision (c)(1) was inappropriate because there was no injury. However, it refused Chenze's request, stating the offenses described by sections 243.1 and 243, subdivision (b) were identical but for the punishment, and the prosecutor had the discretion to choose which statute to charge under.
The jury found Chenze guilty on all three counts. In a bifurcated trial, the court found the Three Strikes and prior prison term allegations true. Chenze was sentenced to concurrent 25-year-to-life terms on the two possession counts. A consecutive two-year term was imposed for battery on a custodial officer. The section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement was stricken.
Chenze contends he was improperly charged with violating section 243.1 because it was impliedly repealed by the subsequent amendment of section 243. In the alternative, he argues section 243 is the more specific statute and hence the only one under which he could be charged. We reject his contentions.
Chenze was charged with, and convicted of, violating section 243.1. That section was originally enacted in 1976 and provides that any battery on a custodial officer is a felony.2 Section 243 also sets forth punishments for battery. It provides a battery is generally punished as a simple misdemeanor (§ 243, subd. (a)), but also specifies more severe punishment for battery against various public safety officers. As amended in 1982 by Assembly Bill No. 3276 (1982-1983 Reg. Sess, hereafter AB 3276), which added custodial officers to the list of special victims (Stats.1982, ch. 1353, § 2, p. 5048), section 243, subdivision (b), makes a battery against a custodial officer a misdemeanor subject to up to one year in county jail,3 and 243, subdivision (c)(1), makes the offense a wobbler—i.e., punishable as a misdemeanor or felony—if injury is inflicted.4
Chenze argues that section 243.1 and section 243, as amended in 1982 by AB 3276, are in irreconcilable conflict. The older statute, section 243.1, provides that any battery against a custodial officer is a felony. But the more recent statute permits felony treatment only if injury is inflicted (§ 243, subd. (c)(1)). The 1982 amendment to section 243 does not effect an implied repeal of section 243.1.
(Medical Board v. Superior Court (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1013-1014, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 381, fns. omitted.)
The statutes are not in irreconcilable conflict as Chenze suggests. In re Rochelle B. (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1212, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 851, discusses some of the legislative history of both provisions. The court noted that section 243.1 was part of legislation introduced to include airport officers within the definition of peace officers for purposes of enhanced punishment for batteries committed against them (Id. at p. 1216, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 851.) When section 243 was amended in 1982 to include custodial officers among its special battery victims, (Id. at p. 1217, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 851, fn. omitted.)
We have obtained, and take judicial notice of, additional legislative history materials concerning AB 3276. An enrolled bill report recommending the Governor sign AB 3276, prepared by the California Youth and Adult Correctional Agency (Enrolled Bill Rep. on AB 3276 (1981-1982 Reg. Sess.) September 20, 1982), explained the aim of the amendment was to "make the punishment for committing battery (when no injury or minor injury is inflicted) on a custodial officer the same as committing battery (when no injury or minor injury is inflicted) on a peace officer, fire fighter, or emergency medical staff." (Id. at p. 1.) The enrolled report's analysis explains, (Id. at p. 2.)
In view of the fact that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Bush
......Butler (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 585, 588, 164 Cal.Rptr. 475 ), we are not persuaded by this argument. As an initial matter, we note " ‘[i]t is axiomatic the Legislature may criminalize the same conduct in different ways.’ " ( People v. Chenze (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 521, 528, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 362, quoting People v. Superior Court (Caswell ) (1986) 46 Cal.3d 381, 395, 250 Cal.Rptr. 515, 758 P.2d 1046.) In People v. Benavides (2005) 35 Cal.4th 69, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 507, 105 P.3d 1099, for example, the court observed that the same conduct ......
-
People v. Wilkinson, S111028.
......1217, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 851, fn. omitted.) . In People v. Chenze (2002) 97 Cal. App.4th 521, 525, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 362 ( Chenze ) , the defendant contended that he was improperly charged and convicted under section 243.1 because that provision had been "impliedly repealed" when the Legislature amended section 243 to include references to custodial officers. The ......
-
Alejo v. Torlakson
...the legal effect of reenacting (thus enacting) the statute as amended, including its unamended portions.’ ” (People v. Chenze (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 521, 527–528, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 362 ( Chenze ).) In Chenze, the question before the court involved two statutes that provided different penalties......
-
Alejo v. Torlakson, A130721
...the legal effect of reenacting (thus enacting) the statute as amended, including its unamended portions.’ ” (People v. Chenze (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 521, 527–528, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 362 ( Chenze ).) In Chenze, the question before the court involved two statutes that provided different penalties......