California Court of Appeal May 16, 2014 No. D063833Unpublished
Filed 5/16/14 In re Michael H. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re MICHAEL H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D063833 THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J211-796)
v.
MICHAEL H.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Browder A. Willis III, Judge. Affirmed.
Patrick M. Ford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Barry Carlton and Karl T. Terp,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Michael H. was committed to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,
Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF) for four years following a probation violation based
on an original conviction of an assault with a deadly weapon as an aider and abettor.
Michael appeals contending that the juvenile court erred in finding that assault with a
deadly weapon qualified as an offense making him eligible for commitment to the DJF as
The rule of lenity is a general interpretive policy or guideline where, if a statute
defining a crime or punishment is susceptible of two reasonable interpretations, courts
ordinarily adopt the interpretation that is more favorable to the defendant.
(People v. Arias (2008) 45 Cal.4th 169, 177.) The rule of lenity only applies if, after
considering the text and purpose, there remains egregious ambiguity or uncertainty in a
statute imposing a criminal penalty, such that the court must simply guess as to what was
intended. (People v. Manzo (2012) 53 Cal.4th 880, 889.) In other words, the rule of
lenity is a tie-breaking principle when two reasonable interpretations of the same
provision stand in relative balance. (Ibid.)
Section 707(b) is not subject to egregious ambiguity or uncertainty. The fact that
a statute could be interpreted favorably to a defendant does not mean a court should strain
to interpret a penal statute in defendant's favor if it can fairly discern legislative intent.
(People v. Manzo, supra, 53 Cal.4th at p. 890.) As discussed above, we are able to
discern legislative intent. The purpose of the statute, general public policy concerns, and
logic all favor an interpretation that would recognize a violation of section 707(b). We
find no egregious ambiguity or uncertainty in section 707(b) such that the court must
7
simply guess as to what was intended by that statute. Accordingly, the rule of lenity does
not compel a different result.
We therefore arrive at the conclusion that Michael's assault with a deadly weapon
falls within the purview of section 707(b).
CONCLUSION
The judgment is affirmed.
MCINTYRE, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
AARON, J.
8
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that an assault with a deadly weapon conviction qualifies as an offense under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (b), because it is subsumed within the enumerated offense of assault by any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury.
Issues
Whether a juvenile court may consider the specific facts of an offense to determine if it qualifies under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707(b).
Whether assault with a deadly weapon constitutes an offense under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707(b).
Whether the rule of lenity requires interpreting Welfare and Institutions Code section 707(b) in favor of the defendant.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“the trial court must consider the evidence before it to determine, as a matter of fact, what the circumstances of the offense were.”
“assault by any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury encompasses assault with a deadly weapon.”