Opinion

The sole issue presented is whether a defendant who has pled guilty to a felony and thereafter commits another felony while released on his own recognizance pending sentencing is subject to the provisions of former section 12022.1 of the Penal Code imposing a two-year enhancement for felonies committed while released “pending trial.”^[1]

On December 8, 1983, defendant pled guilty to receiving stolen property and was released on his own recognizance pending sentencing. Before sentencing, he was charged with murder, personal use of a firearm, and commission of a felony while released on his own recognizance pending trial. Pursuant to a plea bargain he pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter, admitted the firearm use allegation, and submitted the additional charge to the trial court. The trial court found the charge true, and sentenced defendant to the aggravated term of four years for involuntary manslaughter, two years consecutively for the firearm use, and two years consecutively for committing a felony while released pending trial.^[2]

Section 12022.1 as enacted in 1982 provided in part: “Any person convicted of a felony offense which was committed while that person was released from custody on bail or on his or her own recognizance pending trial on an earlier felony offense shall, upon conviction of the later felony offense, be subject to a penalty enhancement as follows: ... [11] (b) If the person is convicted of a felony for the earlier offense, is granted probation[*895] for the earlier offense, and is convicted of a felony for the later offense, any state prison sentence for the later offense shall be enhanced by an additional term of two years. . . .”^[3] (Italics added.) (In 1985 the section was rewritten to apply to persons released on bail or own recognizance “prior to the judgment becoming final, including the disposition of any appeal.”)

Defendant contends that the word “trial” is unambiguous and excludes proceedings following the determination of guilt and that, even if it were ambiguous, the ambiguity must be resolved to exclude such proceeding. The Attorney General argues that the word “trial” is ambiguous and has been used to include the sentencing process, that the word should be interpreted to include the sentencing process to effectuate legislative intent and to avoid absurd consequences, and that the other language of section 12022.1 shows that the word “trial” was intended to encompass judgment. We conclude that, while the word is ambiguous, the ambiguity must be resolved in favor of defendant. His construction is not shown to be contrary to legislative intent, the claimed absurd consequences are not eliminated by construing trial to include sentencing, and the other provisions of section 12022.1, if anything, are contrary to the Attorney General’s position.

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. (People v. Black (1982) 32 Cal.3d 1, 5 [184 Cal.Rptr. 454, 648 P.2d 104].)

When statutory language is clear and unambiguous, there is no need for construction and courts should not indulge in it. (People v. Weidert (1985) 39 Cal.3d 836, 843 [218 Cal.Rptr. 57, 705 P.2d 380]; In re Atiles (1983) 33 Cal.3d 805, 811 [191 Cal.Rptr. 452, 662 P.2d 910].) The words[*896] “pending trial” are not reasonably subject to a construction to include appeals from a judgment, and to this extent there is nothing to construe.

However, while the word “trial” has long been interpreted to refer to the process culminating in the determination of guilt, particularly in bail cases (e.g., Ex Parte Voll (1871) 41 Cal. 29, 32; Ex Parte Brown (1885) 68 Cal. 176, 178 et seq. [8 P. 829]), the word has also been interpreted to include the sentence or judgment in other cases (e.g., People v. McKamy (1914) 168 Cal. 531, 535-536 [143 P. 752]; People v. Arbee (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 351, 356 [192 Cal.Rptr. 13]). Accordingly, we recognize that the word is ambiguous as to whether it includes proceedings following the determination of guilt prior to sentencing.

When language which is susceptible of two constructions is used in a penal law, the policy of this state is to construe the statute as favorably to the defendant as its language and the circumstance of its application reasonably permit. The defendant is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt as to the true interpretation of words or the construction of a statute. (People v. Weidert, supra, 39 Cal.3d 836, 848 [218 Cal.Rptr. 57, 705 P.2d 380]; People v. Davis (1981) 29 Cal.3d 814, 828 [176 Cal.Rptr. 521, 633 P.2d 186]; In re Jeanice D. (1980) 28 Cal.3d 210, 217 [168 Cal.Rptr. 455, 617 P.2d 1087].)

Strict construction of penal statutes protects the individual against arbitrary discretion by officials and judges and guards against judicial usurpation of the legislative function which would result from enforcement of penalties when the legislative branch did not clearly prescribe them. Strict construction also prevents judicial interpretation from changing the legal consequences of acts completed prior to the decision and thus aids in meeting the requirement that a defendant have fair warning of the consequences of his acts reflected in the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. (People v. Weidert, supra, 39 Cal.3d 836, 848-851; Keeler v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 619, 632, 634 [87 Cal.Rptr. 481, 470 P.2d 617, 40 A.L.R.3d 420].)

As Justice Holmes reasoned in interpreting the language of a criminal statute: “Although it is not likely that a criminal will carefully consider the text of the law before he murders or steals, it is reasonable that a fair warning should be given to the world in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed. To make the warning fair, so far as possible the line should be clear. When a rule of conduct is laid down in words that evoke in the common mind only the picture of vehicles moving on land, the statute should not be extended to aircraft, simply because it may seem to us that a similar policy applies,[*897] or upon the speculation that, if the legislature had thought of it, very likely broader words would have been used.” (McBoyle v. United States (1931) 283 U.S. 25, 27 [75 L.Ed. 816, 818, 51 S.Ct. 340].)

In addition, the Legislature is deemed to be aware of existing laws and judicial decisions in effect at the time legislation is enacted and to have enacted and amended statutes ‘“in the light of such decisions as have a direct bearing upon them.’” (Estate of McDill (1975) 14 Cal.3d 831, 839 [122 Cal.Rptr. 754, 537 P.2d 874]; People v. Weidert, supra, 39 Cal.3d 836, 844-846; Bailey v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 970, 977-978, fn. 10 [140 Cal.Rptr. 669, 568 P.2d 394].)

Application of the above rules of construction requires us to conclude that the words “pending trial” refer to the period prior to determination of guilt and do not include the period between determination of guilt and judgment or execution of judgment. The court in McMillon v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 654, 657-658 [204 Cal.Rptr. 52], reached the same conclusions rejecting a statement in People v. Superior Court (Price) (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 486, 489 [198 Cal.Rptr. 61], implying that the section applied to persons awaiting judgment.^[4]

The statutory history of the bill which became section 12022.1 shows that the bill as originally introduced by Assemblymember McAlister provided for the enhancement when a person “arrested or charged” and released from custody committed a felony. The quoted words were deleted in the Assembly, and the words “pending trial” were added along with a number of other changes. The basis of the change is not shown. Yet, it is apparent that the quoted words are words of limitation and could have been omitted if the Legislature did not intend to make a distinction based on the stage of the criminal proceeding.

Obviously, a determination that the words “pending trial” do not include the period following determination of guilt is in accord with the policy to construe statutes as favorably to the defendant as their language reasonably permits. Limiting the words “pending trial” to the proceedings culminating in the determination of guilt is in accord with common usage of the words.

[*898] Traditionally, the Constitution, the Legislature and the cases involving release on bail or own recognizance have drawn distinctions on the basis of the determination of guilt. Thus the constitutional right to release on bail or own recognizance (Cal. Const., art. I, § 12, formerly art. I, § 6) applies only to defendants who have not been convicted and is inapplicable after there has been a determination of guilt. (In re Podesto (1976) 15 Cal.3d 921, 929-930, 931 [127 Cal.Rptr. 97, 544 P.2d 1297]; In re Scaggs (1956) 47 Cal.2d 416, 418 [303 P.2d 1009]; Ex Parte Brown, supra, 68 Cal. 176, 178 et seq.; Ex Parte Voll, supra, 41 Cal. 29, 32.) As stated in Voll, “the Constitution, in declaring bail to be a matter of right, contemplated only those cases in which the guilt of the party had not been already judicially ascertained; cases in which the prisoner as yet stood upon his plea of not guilty, supported with all of the presumptions of innocence with which the law delights to surround him. But when trial has been had, and his plea proven false, the law will not stultify itself by presuming him other than that it has itself adjudged him to be.” (41 Cal. at p. 32.)

The statutes likewise distinguish between release prior to or after the determination of guilt. Thus, former section 1268a, applicable at the times involved here, provided that release from custody on bail or own recognizance was a matter of “right” except where the defendant was charged with an offense punishable with death and the proof was evident or the presumption thereof was great.^[5] Section 1272 provided that pending probation determination or appeal, release on bail or own recognizance is a matter of discretion in felony cases except where the offense is punishable with death or where the judgment imposes a fine only.^[6] Application of the words “pending trial” in accordance with its common usage is thus also in accord[*899] with the traditional distinction made by the Constitution, the Legislature and the courts in treating the matter of bail differently depending upon whether there has been a determination of guilt.

The Attorney General argues that there is no reasonable basis to distinguish between accused defendants who commit felonies while released before trial and defendants who commit felonies while released after guilt has been determined, that such a distinction would result in absurd consequences and that therefore the term “pending trial” should be interpreted as including the pronouncement of judgment.

Pointing out that defendants committing a second felony remain subject to punishment for the second felony whether or not the enhancement is applicable, defendant offers several reasons why the Legislature may have determined to apply the enhancement only where the second felony occurred prior to the determination of guilt.

Defendant argues that the enhancement applicable to released defendants is not applicable to others committing multiple offenses, that only a very small number of defendants would be subject to the enhancement because many defendants are not released for the period between determination of guilt and sentencing and the period is short, that applying the enhancement to defendants awaiting sentencing would not serve a substantial deterrent effect because they are aware already that any additional offense will not only be punishable in itself but also considered by the judge who is about to impose sentence, and that, if the absence of an enhancement for persons awaiting sentencing was due to legislative oversight, it is not the judicial function to impose a penalty where the legislative branch did not clearly impose one.

In any event, even if there were no valid reason to distinguish as to the enhancement between defendants based on the stage of the criminal proceeding, the Legislature unambiguously did so. As pointed out above, the words “pending trial” may not be reasonably construed to include releases while the defendant is appealing. For this reason, arguments to the effect that it is anomalous or contrary to obvious legislative purpose to distinguish between released defendants on the basis of the stage of the criminal proceeding must be rejected. The so-called anomaly will be present under any reasonable interpretation of the words “pending trial.” Necessarily those who commit offenses while released pending appeal are not subject to the enhancement while those committing offenses before determination of guilt are subject to it. The so-called anomaly will be present whether those committing offenses after determination of guilt but before appeal are classified with persons who commit offenses before the determination of guilt[*900] or those who commit offenses while appeal is pending. As we have seen, the traditional approach followed by the Legislature in bail matters, when it makes such a classification, is to classify persons awaiting sentencing with appellants.

The Attorney General requests us to take judicial notice of a commendation letter by Assemblymember McAlister who introduced the bill which became section 12022.1. The letter was sent to Governor Brown with the bill enacting section 12022.1. The letter stated in part: “I believe the legislation is consistent with your interest in encouraging bail for all who should be bailed. In turn, those who commit a felony while on bail ought to be dealt with severely.” However, the letter may not be used to construe the statute under the rules enunciated in California Teachers Assn. v. San Diego Community College District (1981) 28 Cal.3d 692, 699-700 [170 Cal.Rptr. 817, 621 P.2d 856] and In re Marriage of Bouquet (1976) 16 Cal.3d 583, 589-590 [128 Cal.Rptr. 427, 546 P.2d 1371]. Ordinarily, a legislator’s statements as to his motives or understandings are not admissible. The statement may be entitled to consideration when it is a reiteration of legislative discussion and events leading to adoption of proposed amendments and when it gave some indication of arguments made to the Legislature and was printed upon motion of the Legislature as a letter of legislative intent. (Ibid.) Neither exception is applicable here. Moreover, the preceding paragraph of the letter in describing the effect of the legislation used the words “pending trial” so that the subsequent statements must be read in light of the quoted words. Without knowing the Governor’s view on release of persons whose guilt has been determined, the Assemblymember’s statement remains as ambiguous as the quoted words. The letter is of no aid to the Attorney General.

The other provisions of section 12022.1 lend support to the conclusion that “pending trial” does not include periods after the determination of guilt. Thus the Legislature has used the words “sentence” and “sentenced” in subdivisions (a) and (b) (see fn. 3), and it could easily have used those terms had it intended to include periods after the determination of guilt. The Attorney General argues that the section uses the word “convicted” as meaning entry of “judgment” in its subdivisions and that this shows that the earlier usage of “pending trial” should include sentencing. Even assuming that “convicted” is used in the sense of judgment,^[7] this does not[*901] appear helpful to the Attorney General, because “pending trial” is a different term, and more importantly subdivision (c) speaks of “retrial and reconviction” indicating that “trial” does not include conviction.

We conclude that the enhancement of former section 12022.1 for offenses committed while released “pending trial” is not applicable to persons whose second offense is committed after a guilty plea to the first offense.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed.

Bird, C. J., and Reynoso, J., concurred.