People v. Sun

Filed 12/4/18

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G055242

v. (Super. Ct. No. 14CF3863)

MENGYAN SUN, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Lance Jensen, Judge. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. John L. Dodd & Associates, John L. Dodd and Benjamin Ekenes for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Jennifer B. Truong, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellant was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon for discharging a laser into the cockpit of an occupied aircraft. Relying on the Williamson rule (In re Williamson (1954) 43 Cal.2d 651), he contends his prosecution for that general offense was precluded by statutes that specifically pertain to the unlawful use of a laser. We agree and reverse his convictions for assault with a deadly weapon. We publish to underscore the continued vitality and adaptability of the venerable Williamson rule, which we believe has aged well. FACTS Late one night, two officers were piloting a police helicopter in Irvine when a laser struck their cockpit multiple times. The windshield on the aircraft refracted the light from the laser throughout the cockpit, which restricted the officers’ visibility and gave one of them a headache. However, they were able to trace the source of the laser to appellant’s apartment, and officers arrested appellant there a short time later. Appellant was charged with two counts each of assault with a deadly weapon and aggravated assault on a peace officer. (Pen. Code, § 245, subds. (a)(1) & 1 (c).) The information also alleged six counts of discharging a laser at an occupied aircraft under section 247.5. Following the preliminary hearing, appellant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 995. Among other things, he argued prosecution of the assault counts was precluded under the Williamson rule, which provides that a special criminal statute is considered an exception to a general statute with which it conflicts. Finding insufficient evidence appellant knew the aircraft in question was a police helicopter, the trial court dismissed the two counts of aggravated assault on a peace officer. However, it denied the motion in all other respects.