Rochelle B., In re

• Decision Date: 30 September 1996
• Docket Number: No. A072476,A072476
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: , 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7382, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,089 In re ROCHELLE B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROCHELLE B., Defendant and Appellant.

Page 851

57 Cal.Rptr.2d 851

49 Cal.App.4th 1212, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7382,

96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,089

In re ROCHELLE B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROCHELLE B., Defendant and Appellant.

No. A072476.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 3, California.

Sept. 30, 1996.

[49 Cal.App.4th 1213] Catalina Lozano, San Rafael, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Ronald A. Bass, Assistant Attorney General, Ronald E. Niver and Margo J. Yu, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

WALKER, Associate Justice.

Rochelle appeals from a juvenile court judgment and disposition order on a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, sustaining an allegation that she committed a battery on a "custodial officer" engaged in the performance of her duties, in violation of Penal Code section 243.1. ¹ She contends that she was wrongly charged and tried under section 243.1 because the victim of the battery was a juvenile probation counselor

and not a "custodial officer" as defined by section 831, subdivision (a). We agree. Therefore we reverse the order and judgment, and remand the matter to the juvenile court for redisposition.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On July 12, 1995, Patricia Barrett was employed as a temporary probation counselor at the Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall, where appellant was being detained. ² At approximately 5:45 p.m., Barrett observed appellant and lead counselor Kathy Mazariegos in the foyer area of the living unit designated to accommodate juvenile females. Mazariegos was asking appellant to go to her room until the counselors could get another resident, Bonnie C., to go to her room. For safety reasons, the counselors did not want the two girls in the same area at the same time. Appellant was agitated and upset because the counselors were asking her to go to her room first. Barrett approached in order to assist Mazariegos. As appellant and Bonnie screamed epithets at each other, Barrett tried to persuade appellant to go to her room while the counselors got Bonnie to her room. Appellant refused to go, and then tried to get past Barrett and Mazariegos by pushing them out of the way. Barrett pushed appellant back against an office window. Appellant clenched her fist and forcibly punched Barrett in the left breast. Barrett tried to get appellant in a "head-reversal" to bring her to the ground and restrain her. Appellant bit Barrett's hand and spat in her face. Barrett and Mazariegos obtained assistance from other personnel and finally restrained appellant.

On July 20, 1995, an amended fourth supplemental petition was filed alleging that appellant committed two counts of battery against a custodial officer in violation of section 243.1, and one count of petty theft. After a contested hearing on August 3, 1995, the juvenile court sustained count 2 of the petition, which alleged a felony battery against a custodial officer. ³ The juvenile court found not true the first count of battery upon a custodial officer (Mazariegos), and dismissed the third count alleging petty theft. At the dispositional hearing, appellant was ordered placed in a group residential home. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

The question before us is whether section 243.1, battery against a custodial officer, applies to a battery committed upon a probation counselor working in a juvenile hall. Specifically, we must decide whether a "probation counselor" comes within the definition of "custodial officer" as that term is used in section 243.1 to describe the victim, and as defined in section 831.

Section 243.1 states: "When a battery is committed against the person of a custodial officer as defined in Section 831 of the Penal Code, and the person committing the offense knows or reasonably should know that such victim is a custodial officer engaged in the performance of his duties, and such custodial officer is engaged in the performance of his duties, the offense shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison." The term "custodial officer" is in turn defined in section 831, subdivision (a) as follows: "A custodial officer is a public officer, not a peace officer, employed by a law enforcement agency of a city or county who has the authority and responsibility for maintaining custody of prisoners and performs tasks related to the operation of a local detention facility used for the detention of persons usually pending arraignment or upon court order either for their own safekeeping or for the specific purpose of serving a sentence therein."

By its terms section 243.1 is specifically limited in scope to batteries committed against "custodial officers" as defined in section 831. Only if victim Barrett herself came under the specific definition of a "custodial officer" as set forth in that provision could the fourth supplemental petition be sustained under section 243.1. Our task then is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature as to the identity of the class of persons to be included as victims of the crime of battery against a "custodial officer." We must give the statutory provisions at issue a reasonable and common sense interpretation, consistent with the apparent purpose and intention of the Legislature. If possible, we will give significance to the plain meaning of every word, phrase, and sentence of a statute in pursuance of the legislative purpose, harmonizing the various parts of an enactment by considering each particular clause or section in the context of the statutory framework as a whole. In this process, we must take into account the context, object, and history of the legislation, as well as public policy and contemporaneous construction in our attempt to arrive at a construction that is practical rather than technical in nature. (Cossack v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 726, 733, 114 Cal.Rptr. 460, 523 P.2d 260; Moyer v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1973) 10 Cal.3d 222, 230, 110 Cal.Rptr. 144, 514 P.2d 1224; Conservatorship of Bryant (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 117, 120-123, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 755; Schmidt v. Retirement Board (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1204, 1210-1212, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 297; Mir v. Charter Suburban Hospital (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1471, 1487, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 243; DeYoung v. City of San Diego (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 11, 17-19, 194 Cal.Rptr. 722.)

The legislative history of the relevant statutes is convoluted. Section 831 was originally introduced in 1974 to create a new "non-peace-officer position of custodial officer" among persons responsible for maintaining custody of prisoners and operation of detention facilities in Los Angeles, and to grant these officers certain specified powers similar to those of a peace officer. (Stats.1974, ch. 887, § 1, p. 1885.) Part of the purpose of this statute was to permit the newly-created custodial officers to work in jails, thus freeing regular police officers for patrol duties. (Legis. Counsel's Dig., Assem. Bill No. 4463 (1973-1974 Reg.Sess.).) Nowhere in the legislative history of section 831 is there mention of juveniles, juvenile counselors or juvenile facilities.

Section 243.1 was originally introduced in 1975 as part of legislation to include "special officers" of the Los Angeles Department of Airports within the definition of peace officers for purposes of enhancing the punishment for batteries committed against such "special officers," and separately to provide similar increased punishment for a new crime of battery committed against "custodial officers." The apparent intent of this legislation was to continue the distinction between custodial officers and peace officers. (Legis.Counsel's Dig., Sen.Bill No. 931 (1975-1976 Reg.Sess.); Senate Judiciary Com.Rep. on Sen.Bill No. 931 (1975).) Again, the legislative history contains no mention of juveniles, juvenile detention facilities or juvenile counselors.

At various times, the Legislature amended these statutes or added others enhancing punishment for batteries committed against various additional categories of victims. Thus, section 831 was broadened from its original limited focus on Los Angeles by amendment in 1980 and 1981 to include the present definition of "custodial officer," and to permit persons to perform the duties of a custodial officer under supervision, while completing their training. (Stats.1980, ch. 1340, § 22, p. 4728; Stats.1981, ch. 987, §§ 1-2, pp. 3825-3826; Enrolled Bill Rep. for Sen.Bill No. 412 (1981-1982 Reg.Sess.).) In 1980, the Legislature enacted section 831.5, creating an additional class of "custodial officers" employed by law enforcement agencies of counties having a population of 250,000 or less. (Stats.1980, ch. 772, § 3, p. 2290.) In 1987, that statute was amended to apply to counties having a population of 425,000 or less. (Stats.1987, ch. 234, § 1, p. 1213.) The legislative reports on section 831.5 refer to custodial officers as employed in "jails" in connection with the custody of "prisoners." There is no reference to "juveniles" or "juvenile detention facilities." (Enrolled Bill Rep. for Sen.Bill No. 1994 (1979-1980 Reg.Sess.); Section 243 was originally enacted in 1872 to set forth the punishment for battery as defined in section 242. The statute was amended over the years to set out aggravated penalties for batteries against certain specifically enumerated victims, including peace officers, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians, among others. (Stats.1981, ch. 678, § 2, p. 2476.) In 1982, section 243 was amended to include "custodial officers" among this category of battery victims. The legislative reports on this amendment refer to custodial officers as "public officers" with responsibility for maintaining custody of "prisoners." (Stats.1982, ch. 1353, § 2, p. 5048; Enrolled Bill Rep. for Assem.Bill No. 3276 (1981-1982 Reg.Sess.)....