People v. Treadway, Cr. A
Decision Date | 23 December 1975 |
Docket Number | Cr. A |
Citation | 127 Cal.Rptr. 306,55 Cal.App.3d Supp. 15 |
Court | California Superior Court |
Parties | 55 Cal.App.3d Supp. 15 The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Willie TREADWAY, Defendant and Respondent. 13649. Appellate Department, Superior Court, Los Angeles County, California |
Before HOLMES, P.J., and COLE and ALARCON, JJ.
The People appeal from an order granting defendant's motion that certain pit bull dogs be returned to him. The order was made pursuant to Penal Code section 599aa. 1 We reverse, holding that defendant was convicted by his guilty plea of the violation of a provision of the Penal Code relating to the fighting of animals, and therefore was not entitled to the return of the dogs.
The defendant was charged with three counts of violating section 597c 2 and one count of violating section 597b. 3 As the result of a negotiated plea bargain he pleaded guilty to one of the section 597c counts and the remaining counts were dismissed.
The trial court took the position that the dogs should not be forfeited based solely upon its 'finding' that section 599aa was not applicable because there had been no conviction under section 597b. Its ruling was in response to an argument that section 599aa applied only to a defendant convicted of violating section 597b. This argument and ruling misread the statute.
The only express reference to section 597b which is found in section 599aa is in the opening sentence. (See fn. 1, Supra.) That sentence defines those officers who may seize birds, animals and other specified things. 4 The sentence does not define section 597b as the sole offense whose commission authorizes either the seizure or forfeiture of the animals. It is clear to us from the quoted language that if any Penal Code section relating to animal fighting is violated, the animals involved are to be forfeited upon the conviction of the person charged with the violation.
Further, sections 597b and 597c were enacted at the same time (Stats.1905, ch. 519, § 2) as a condification of an earlier statute '. . . for the more effectual prevention of cruelty to animals.' (Code Commissioners' notes to section 597, West's Annot.Pen.Code.)
The two sections are (People v. Untiedt (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 550, 554, 116 Cal.Rptr. 899, 900.)
Section 599aa shares the same purpose. Each of the statutes must be construed in light of their clear legislative purpose. (Id.) In light of that purpose it would make no sense to forbid the return of animals used in fighting to one convicted of violating section 597b and to command the return of animals to another convicted of violating another statute in the same series, particularly when the language of section 599aa expressly refers to 'violation of Any of the provisions of this code relating to the fighting of birds or animals.' (Emphasis added.)
The order is reversed, with directions to deny the motion.
1 The section reads:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. A Blue Chevrolet Astro
...599aa list only two cases. (See, e.g., West's Ann. Penal Code (1999 ed.) foil. § 599aa, p. 67.) One of them, People v. Treadway (1975) 127 Cal.Rptr. 306, 55 Cal.App.3d Supp. 15, is irrelevant for our purposes. The other, Jett v. Municipal Court (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 664, 223 Cal. Rptr. 111,......
-
Jett v. Municipal Court
...conviction under any Penal Code section prohibiting specific activities involving fighting birds or animals. (People v. Treadway (1975) 55 Cal.App.3d Supp. 15, 127 Cal.Rptr. 306.) Jett was not arrested under any of these bird- or animal-fighting Penal Code sections and he was not charged wi......