People v. Villela
Decision Date | 24 May 1994 |
Docket Number | No. F019599,F019599 |
Citation | 25 Cal.App.4th 54,30 Cal.Rptr.2d 253 |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Pedro Sanchez VILLELA, Defendant and Appellant. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
ROGER D. RANDALL, Associate Justice (Assigned by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council).
Appellant was charged with two counts of conspiracy (Pen.Code, § 182, subd. (a)(1)): conspiracy to transport heroin in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a); and conspiracy to purchase/possess a controlled substance for sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351. It was alleged he was armed with a firearm in the commission of the charged offenses. An additional count charged he possessed heroin for sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351.
In exchange for a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of conspiracy to transport heroin the remaining charges against appellant were dismissed, as were the enhancing allegations, and he was sentenced to the aggravated term of five years in prison, and ordered to register as a narcotics offender pursuant to the provisions of Health and Safety Code section 11590. 1 He was also ordered to pay a restitution fine of $1,000 pursuant to the provisions of Penal Code section 1202.4.
Appellant contends that it was error to impose a restitution fine without considering his ability to pay. He also maintains there is no basis for requiring him to register as a narcotics offender based upon his conviction of conspiracy to transport heroin. The latter issue is one of first impression.
DISCUSSION
II.
CAN A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT AN OFFENSE LISTED IN SECTION 11590 PROPERLY BE REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A NARCOTICS OFFENDER?
Section 11590 subdivision (a) provides in relevant part:
"Except as provided in subdivisions (c) and (d), any person who is convicted in the State of California of any offense defined in Section 11350, 11351, 11351.5, 11352, 11353, 11353.5, 11353.7, 11354, 11355, 11357, 11358, 11359, 11360, 11361, 11363, 11366, 11366.5, 11366.6, 11368, 11378, 11378.5, 11379, 11379.5, 11379.6, 11380, 11380.5, 11383, or 11550, or subdivision (a) of Section 11377, or any person who is discharged or paroled from a penal institution where he or she was confined because of the commission of any such offense, or any person who is convicted in any other state of any offense which, if committed or attempted in this state, would have been punishable as one or more of the above-mentioned offenses, shall within 30 days of his or her coming into any county or city, or city and county in which he or she resides or is temporarily domiciled for that length of time, register with the chief of police of the city in which he or she resides or the sheriff of the county if he or she resides in an unincorporated area."
Appellant contends that, inasmuch as Penal Code section 182, subdivision (a)(1) (conspiracy) is not among the offenses enumerated in section 11590, the registration requirement which was imposed upon him must be stricken. Relying upon several cases which have construed registration statutes to apply only to those offenses they specifically enumerate (People v. Brun (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 951, 260 Cal.Rptr. 850; People v. Saunders (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1592, 284 Cal.Rptr.212; In re Bernardino S. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 613, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 746 and People v. Jillie (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 960, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 107) he asserts that the principle expressio unius est exclusio alterius requires that we find the trial court erred in requiring him to register as a narcotics offender upon his conviction for conspiracy to transport heroin.
In People v. Brun, supra, 212 Cal.App.3d at page 951, 260 Cal.Rptr. 850, defendant was convicted of possession of methamphetamine for sale in violation of section 11378. He claimed it was error to require him to register as a drug offender because section 11590 did not (at that time) by its terms require registration for violation of section 11378. The Brun court agreed.
(People v. Brun, supra, 212 Cal.App.3d at p. 954, 260 Cal.Rptr. 850.)
There is a distinction between the circumstances in Brun and the present case. In Brun, the defendant was required to register for a drug offense which was not listed in section 11590. Here, appellant was convicted of conspiracy to commit a drug offense which is listed in section 11590.
In People v. Saunders, supra, 232 Cal.App.3d at page 1592, 284 Cal.Rptr. 212, defendant was convicted of assault with intent to commit oral copulation in violation of Penal Code section 220. Section 220 proscribes several different aggravated assaults including assault with intent to commit rape, sodomy or oral copulation. The trial court ordered Saunders to register as a sex offender pursuant to Penal Code section 290. However, although Penal Code section 290 required registration of any person who was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape or sodomy in violation of Penal Code section 220, it did not by its terms require registration of those convicted of assault with intent to commit oral copulation in violation of Penal Code section 220.
In reviewing Saunder's claim of error, this court recognized that it made little if any sense to exclude registration for convictions involving assault with intent to commit oral copulation. Nevertheless, we were constrained by the ..." (People v. Saunders, supra, 232 Cal.App.3d at p. 1597, 284 Cal.Rptr. 212.) Prior to a 1986 amendment to Penal Code section 290, all violations of Penal Code section 220 required registration. The amended version of Penal Code section 290, however, listed only the offenses of assault with intent to commit rape or assault with the intent to commit sodomy; assault with intent to commit oral copulation was no longer included. The court was compelled to agree with Saunders that the legislative intent was clear and that the sentencing court exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering registration. (Id. at p. 1598, 284 Cal.Rptr. 212.)
In re Bernardino S., supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at page 613, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 746, involved sex offender registration of a minor pursuant Penal Code section 290. By its terms, subdivision (d) made Penal Code section 290 applicable only to those minors who had been discharged or paroled from the California Youth Authority (CYA) following commitment for the commission of an enumerated offense. Although Bernardino S. had been found to have committed an enumerated offense, he had not been committed to CYA. Following Brun and Saunders, the court ordered the registration requirement stricken from the dispositional order:
(In re Bernardino S., supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at pp. 623-624, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 746.)
The defendant in People v. Jillie, supra, 8 Cal.App.4th at page 960, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 107, was convicted of attempted forcible sodomy, attempted forcible oral copulation, and failure to register as a sex offender. In addition to being sentenced to prison, Jillie was ordered to submit to testing for AIDS pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.1. He challenged the testing requirement claiming the section by its terms applied only to offenses listed in the statute and not to attempted violations of the listed offenses. Respondent claimed the statute was ambiguous and urged the court to construe the section to cover attempted offenses. The court demurred:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Ruiz
...( Id . at p. 406, 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 570, 114 P.3d 806.) However, we made this statement in the context of endorsing People v. Villela (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 54, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 253 insofar as it looked to whether a prescribed consequence for the underlying target offense "was a punishment" to de......
-
People v. Athar
...(c) of section 186.10. We are compelled also by the reasoning of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in People v. Villela (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 54, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 253, relied upon by the People, in which the court held a defendant was properly required to register as a narcotics offender und......
-
In re Jorge G.
...and therefore need not be based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The minor's reliance on our opinion in People v. Villela (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 54, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 253 is misplaced. There, we held that narcotics offender registration pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11590 is pun......
-
In re Luisa Z.
...occurred. Anyone who fails to comply with the registration requirement is guilty of a misdemeanor. (§ 11594; People v. Villela (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 54, 60, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 253; People v. Brun, 212 Cal.App.3d at p. 955, 260 Cal.Rptr. 850.) The purpose of section 11590's registration requirem......