People v. Casey CA1/4

Filed 5/28/25 P. v. Casey CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A170873 v. PICHINO W. CASEY, (Marin County Super. Ct. No. SC218478A) Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Pichino W. Casey appeals from a felony conviction for child endangerment, with a finding that his victim was particularly vulnerable. His sole argument on appeal is that the superior court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the crime occurred on federal land in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA). That is incorrect. The judgment is affirmed. BACKGROUND We resolve this case by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) We provide the following limited factual summary because our opinion is unpublished and the parties know, or should know, “the facts of the case and its procedural history.” (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.)

1

Casey was arrested in the GGNRA by park rangers after a vehicle pursuit. When he was apprehended, his wife and baby were with him in the vehicle. There was no car seat for the child. All the events occurred in Marin County. Casey was charged with several felonies, and a jury found him guilty of a single count of child endangerment in violation of California Penal Code section 273a, subdivision (a), with an aggravated circumstance finding that his victim was particularly vulnerable. He was sentenced to probation, and his appeal is timely. DISCUSSION Relying on an assortment of statutes and cases that discuss the appropriate forum when crimes occur in multiple counties or different jurisdictional territories, Casey argues the superior court lacked jurisdiction because his crime occurred entirely within the GGNRA. However, there is nothing in the record that shows California has ceded exclusive criminal jurisdiction to the federal government over public offenses occurring in the GGNRA. “[F]ederal ownership of land does not necessarily establish ‘federal jurisdiction over crimes committed upon it, as that fact does not oust the jurisdiction of the state . . . .’ [Citation.] ‘[F]or many purposes a State has civil and criminal jurisdiction over lands within its limits belonging to the United States,’ including the punishment of ‘public offenses, such as murder or larceny, committed on such lands.’ [Citations.] Whether the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over crimes committed on federal lands depends on the terms on which the lands were acquired from the states.” (People v. Hoyt (2020) 8 Cal.5th 892, 911.)