Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 California opinions name it 2 courts 2020–2021 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Whalumgreen2 sentences2021(People v. Whalum, supra, 50 Cal.App.5th at p. 3, rev. gr.) While Whalum did not address issues relating to the offense at issue here (id. at p. 10), the panel of this court agreed with Perry that “Proposition 64 did not affect laws specifically directed at criminalizing the possession of cannabis as contraband in a correctional institution.” (Whalum, at p. 5.) Whalum “agree[d] with Perry’s analysis regarding the scope of the carve out in section 11362.45, subdivision (d), and . . . accordingly conclude[d] that Proposition 64 does not affect laws, including Penal Code section 4573.8, which mak 2021(People v. Whalum, supra, 50 Cal.App.5th at p. 3, rev. gr.) While Whalum did not address issues relating to the offense at issue here (id. at p. 10), the panel of this court agreed with Perry that “Proposition 64 did not affect laws specifically directed at criminalizing the possession of cannabis as contraband in a correctional institution.” (Whalum, at p. 5.) Whalum “agree[d] with Perry’s analysis regarding the scope of the carve out in section 11362.45, subdivision (d), and . . . accordingly conclude[d] that Proposition 64 does not affect laws, including Penal Code section 4573.8, which mak | 10 | 10 |
People v. Herreragreen2 sentences2021(People v. Whalum, supra, 50 Cal.App.5th at p. 3, rev. gr.) While Whalum did not address issues relating to the offense at issue here (id. at p. 10), the panel of this court agreed with Perry that “Proposition 64 did not affect laws specifically directed at criminalizing the possession of cannabis as contraband in a correctional institution.” (Whalum, at p. 5.) Whalum “agree[d] with Perry’s analysis regarding the scope of the carve out in section 11362.45, subdivision (d), and . . . accordingly conclude[d] that Proposition 64 does not affect laws, including Penal Code section 4573.8, which mak 2020(See, e.g., People v. Perry (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 885 ; People v. Herrera, supra, 52 Cal.App.5th 982 .) In reaching that conclusion, they rely on the carve-out provision in section 11362.45, which provides that section 11362.1 “does not amend, repeal, affect, restrict, or preempt” laws “pertaining to smoking or ingesting cannabis or cannabis products” in a facility under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (§ 11362.45, subd. (d), italics added). | 4 | 6 |
People v. Perrygreen2 sentences2020(See Perry, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 890 [Proposition 64 did not change any existing “prohibitions against the possession of marijuana in prison or otherwise affect the operation of Penal Code section 4573.6.”].) We arrived at this conclusion by analyzing the language of the statutes enacted pursuant to the passage of Proposition 64—specifically, the carve out in Health and Safety Code section 11362.45, subdivision (d), for “[l]aws pertaining to smoking or ingesting cannabis” in prison. 2020(See Perry, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 890 [Proposition 64 did not change any existing “prohibitions against the possession of marijuana in prison or otherwise affect the operation of Penal Code section 4573.6.”].) We arrived at this conclusion by analyzing the language of the statutes enacted pursuant to the passage of Proposition 64— specifically, the carve out in Health and Safety Code section 11362.45, subdivision (d), for “[l]aws pertaining to smoking or ingesting cannabis” in prison. | 3 | 7 |
People v. Lowgreen2 sentences2021(People v. Low (2010) 49 Cal.4th 372, 388 (Low).) Thus, under defendants’ interpretation, section 11362.45, subdivision (d)’s carve-out provision would fail to preserve any preexisting law regulating cannabis in prisons from being “amend[ed], repeal[ed], affect[ed], restrict[ed], or preempt[ed]” (§ 11362.45), and would instead render the possession and use of up to 28.5 grams of cannabis in prison entirely lawful. 2021(People v. Low (2010) 49 Cal.4th 372, 388 (Low).) Thus, under defendants’ interpretation, section 11362.45, subdivision (d)’s carve-out provision would fail to preserve any preexisting law regulating cannabis in prisons from being “amend[ed], repeal[ed], affect[ed], restrict[ed], or preempt[ed]” (§ 11362.45), and would instead render the possession and use of up to 28.5 grams of cannabis in prison entirely lawful. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Raybon
green
2 sentences2021(People v. Whalum, supra, 50 Cal.App.5th at p. 3, rev. gr.) While Whalum did not address issues relating to the offense at issue here (id. at p. 10), the panel of this court agreed with Perry that “Proposition 64 did not affect laws specifically directed at criminalizing the possession of cannabis as contraband in a correctional institution.” (Whalum, at p. 5.) Whalum “agree[d] with Perry’s analysis regarding the scope of the carve out in section 11362.45, subdivision (d), and . . . accordingly conclude[d] that Proposition 64 does not affect laws, including Penal Code section 4573.8, which mak 2021(People v. Whalum, supra, 50 Cal.App.5th at p. 3, rev. gr.) While Whalum did not address issues relating to the offense at issue here (id. at p. 10), the panel of this court agreed with Perry that “Proposition 64 did not affect laws specifically directed at criminalizing the possession of cannabis as contraband in a correctional institution.” (Whalum, at p. 5.) Whalum “agree[d] with Perry’s analysis regarding the scope of the carve out in section 11362.45, subdivision (d), and . . . accordingly conclude[d] that Proposition 64 does not affect laws, including Penal Code section 4573.8, which mak | 7 | 2020–2021 |
People v. Fenton
green
2 sentences2021While agreeing that Health and Safety Code section 11362.45(d)’s carve-out provision operates to preserve cannabis-related convictions under Penal Code section 4573.8 (which makes it a felony to 14 The Court of Appeal concluded that this case was controlled by its prior decision in Fenton, supra, 20 Cal.App.4th 965 . 2021While agreeing that Health and Safety Code section 11362.45(d)’s carve-out provision operates to preserve cannabis-related convictions under Penal Code section 4573.8 (which makes it a felony to 14 The Court of Appeal concluded that this case was controlled by its prior decision in Fenton, supra, 20 Cal.App.4th 965 . | 2 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Harris
green
2 sentences2020The Raybon court concluded “the plain language of Health and Safety Code section 11362.1, enacted as part of Proposition 64,” compelled a finding that “possession of less than an ounce of cannabis in prison is no longer a felony.” (Raybon, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 113 , review granted.) The court found support for its position in two prior cases, Fenton and Harris, which the court noted rejected many of the same arguments the Attorney General was asserting that were “at odds with the plain meaning of the statute.” (Id. at pp. 117-119.)8 With regard to the scope of the carve out in section 1 2020The Raybon court concluded “the plain language of Health and Safety Code section 11362.1, enacted as part of Proposition 64,” compelled a finding that “possession of less than an ounce of cannabis in prison is no longer a felony.” (Raybon, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 113 , review granted.) The court found support for its position in two prior cases, Fenton and Harris, which the court noted rejected many of the same arguments the Attorney General was asserting that were “at odds with the plain meaning of the statute.” (Raybon, 6 Section 11054, subdivision (d)(13). 8 at pp. 117-119.)7 With regar | 2 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Overstreet
green
2 sentences2020Finally, Whalum points to the case law providing that "[w]hen 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 circumstances of its application reasonably permit." (People v. Overstreet (1986) 42 Cal.3d 891, 896 .) In our view, this principle does not require us to conclude that the carve-out in section 11362.45, subdivision (d) applies only to laws that criminalize smoking and 19 ingesting cannabis. 2020Finally, Whalum points to the case law providing that "[w]hen 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 circumstances of its application reasonably permit." (People v. Overstreet (1986) 42 Cal.3d 891, 896 .) In our view, this principle does not require us to conclude that the carve-out in section 11362.45, subdivision (d) applies only to laws that criminalize smoking and 19 ingesting cannabis. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass'n v. City of Salinas
green
1 sentence2020The next principle upon which Whalum relies is that "exceptions to a general rule of an enactment must be strictly construed." (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass'n v. City of Salinas (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1358 .) Whalum contends that this doctrine applies because the carve-out in section 11362.45, subdivision (d) "creates an exception to the general rule of legalization in section 11362.1." We do not believe that our interpretation of section 11362.45, subdivision (d) does any violence to this principle. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.