People v. Weatherill
Decision Date | 28 November 1989 |
Docket Number | No. B042229,B042229 |
Citation | 264 Cal.Rptr. 298,215 Cal.App.3d 1569 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. William Troy WEATHERILL, Defendant and Appellant. |
James K. Hahn, City Atty., William N. Sterling, Deputy City Atty., Supervisor Appellate Section, and Peter W. Mason, Deputy City Atty., for plaintiff and respondent.
Do VEHICLE CODE SECTIONS 232021 and 23206, which prohibit diversion "in any" driving under the influence case, make an exception for a developmentally disabled defendant? Our answer is no.
On October 22, 1986, defendant was charged with misdemeanor violations of section 23152, subdivision (a), driving under the influence of alcohol, and section 23152, subdivision (b), driving with .10 percent alcohol in his blood. As to both counts it was alleged that he had suffered a 1984 conviction of section 23152, subdivision (a).
At his arraignment, defendant's counsel moved for diversion pursuant to Penal Code section 1001.21 which provides:
A Mr. John R. Lewis, present at the arraignment, indicated to the court that he was a social worker from the Lanterman Regional Center 2 and that defendant had been diagnosed developmentally disabled. Mr. Lewis further informed the court that the regional center was not residential nor even out-patient but merely "managed" cases of developmentally disabled persons.
After several continuances, defendant's diversion motion was heard on March 9, 1987. The court denied the motion, ruling that Penal Code section 1001.21 is inapplicable when a defendant is charged with driving under the influence of alcohol.
Defendant sought to overturn this ruling by his petition to the superior court for a writ of mandate. Superior Court Judge Jack M. Newman denied the petition. Defendant then filed a petition for a writ of mandate with the Court of Appeal. Division Four of this Court denied the writ.
On November 13, 1987, defendant waived jury. By agreement, his court trial consisted of the submission into evidence of his arrest report and a stipulation concerning his blood alcohol reading, .24 percent. The court found the defendant guilty as charged and found the alleged prior driving under the influence of alcohol conviction true. As part of a plea-sentence agreement the court placed defendant on three years summary, not formal, probation subject to various conditions including attending 24 Alcoholic Anonymous meetings through the Lanterman Regional Center and the payment of any civil judgment arising from this case. 3 Count 2, section 23152, subdivision (b), was dismissed.
On April 25, 1989, the appellate department of the superior court filed and certified for publication their unanimous opinion affirming the judgment of conviction.
On May 31, 1989, pursuant to rule 62(a), California Rules of Court, we ordered the matter transferred to this court to secure uniformity of decision and to settle important questions of law.
Plain meaning of section 23202
Central to our discussion is section 23202 and its prohibition against diversion. By forbidding any stay in proceedings, the essential mechanism for any diversion program, it precludes diversion in any driving under the influence case. The section provides:
Although section 23202 applies only "prior to acquittal or conviction," section 23206, subdivision (a) 4 imposes a similar post conviction constraint.
In ascertaining the meaning of section 23202 we begin with the cardinal rule of all statutory construction: "The fundamental rule is that a court should ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the law's purpose and in determining intent the court first turns to the words used."
The words of section 23202, "in any [§ 23152 or § 23153] case" are all inclusive, as are the words "if any person," in the correlative section 23206, subdivision (a). See fn. 4 Their apparent meaning is that all driving under the influence defendants, without exception, shall have their guilt or innocence determined without delay and without diversion and those found guilty shall be timely sentenced. This meaning is reinforced by the mandate of section 23206, subdivision (c): "The court shall not absolve a person who is convicted of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153 from the obligation of spending the minimum time in confinement, if any, or of paying the minimum fine provided in this article."
Perceiving no ambiguity in sections 23202 and 23206 our inquiry would normally end. But defendant contends that this seeming all inclusive prohibition against diversion is apparent only. Actually when read with Penal Code section 1001.21, ante, it is clear, defendant argues, that the legislature intended to allow diversion for the developmentally disabled.
We therefore continue our inquiry and "look to a variety of extrinsic aids, including the ostensible objects to be achieved, the evils to be remedied, the legislative history, public policy, contemporaneous administrative construction, and the statutory scheme of which the statute is a part." (People v. Woodhead, supra, 43 Cal.3d 1002, 1008, 239 Cal.Rptr. 656, 741 P.2d 154.)
The prologue to Assembly Bill 541 (1981-1982 Reg. Sess.), the statute which reformed California's driving under the influence laws and added sections 23202 and 23206 to the Vehicle Code, is a long and painful one. As Justice Mosk observed, quoting a turn of the century editorialist, " " (Burg v. Municipal Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 257, 261, 198 Cal.Rptr. 145, 673 P.2d 732.)
Disaster was invited and disaster came. The statistics have become familiar: (Ibid.) California led the parade. "Indeed, in the years 1976 to 1980 there were many more injuries to California residents in alcohol-related traffic accidents than were suffered by the entire Union Army during the Civil War, and more were killed than in the bloodiest year of the Vietnam War." (Id. at p. 262, 198 Cal.Rptr. 145, 673 P.2d 732.)
Even these statistics inadequately described the "wide swath of death, pain, grief, and untold physical and emotional injury across the roads of California" (id. at p. 262, 198 Cal.Rptr. 145, 673 P.2d 732) caused by drunk drivers. Legislative efforts to curb the carnage proved unavailing.
In 1979 the legislature made this finding: (Health & Saf.Code, § 11760.)
It was these "substantial fatalities", cold words to mark the loved sons and daughters of grieving parents, which created Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), the source and principal sponsor of AB 541. As the Legislative Intent Service [LIS] indicates, Candy Lightner, founder and president of MADD, was a constituent of Assemblywoman Jean...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tan v. Superior Court of San Mateo Cnty.
...of DUI offenses into Penal Code section 1001.36 — Vehicle Code section 23640 accomplishes that"]; People v. Weatherill (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1569, 1579–1580, 264 Cal.Rptr. 298 ( Weatherill ) [recognizing statutory diversion schemes enacted in 1982 expressly excluded DUIs, explaining this se......
-
People v. Superior Court of Riverside Cnty.
...public wanted and AB 541 provided ‘[c]elerity and certainty of punishment’ " for DUI offenses. ( People v. Weatherill (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1569, 1575, 264 Cal.Rptr. 298 ( Weatherill .)C. The New Misdemeanor Diversion Program ( §§ 1001.95 - 1001.97 )On September 30, 2020, the Governor sig......
-
People v. Johnson
...close cases where persuasive arguments can be marshalled on either side of the disputed issue (see, e.g., People v. Weatherill (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1569, 1588-1589, 264 Cal.Rptr. 298). In this case, however, the issue no matter how close is also fundamental--whether this defendant has been......
-
McLaughlin v. State Bd. of Education
...statute controls the general one. [Citations.] The referent of `general' and `specific' is subject matter.' (People v. Weatherill (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1569, 1577-1578 ; see also Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 168, 178-179 ; Yoffie v. Marin......
-
DMV proceedings
...a proponent of the legislation ( Woodman v. Superior Court (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 407, 414, 241 CR 818; People v. Weatherill (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1569, 1576, 264 CR 298). This footnote calls for you to add the documents you have from other DMV Stop ‘n Snatch matters showing a pattern of lat......
-
Punishment
...mandated minimum time in confinement or paying the statutorily imposed minimum fine upon conviction. (See People v. Weatherill (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1569, 1573.) The instant case does not involve the suspension or staying of a proceeding to allow a person to attend a treatment program. It i......
-
Table of cases
...People v. Wattier (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 948, §1:21.5 People v. Waxler (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 712, §7:64 People v. Weatherill (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1569, §§8:00, 10:42 People v. Weatherton (2015) 238 Cal. App. 4th 676, §14:13 People v. Weathington (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 69, §§9:30.1, 9:103.6,......
-
Diversion and the suspension of proceedings
...for developmentally disabled persons) does not specifically exclude Veh. C §§ 23152 and 23153 offenses, People v. Weatherill (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1569 held Veh. C §23202 (now Veh. C §23640) bars it. The Los Angeles County pilot program referenced above is one of several statutes enacted in......