×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
California: Prison Drug Law Applies to State Mental Hospital
On February 17, 2004 a California Court of Appeal held that a state law
prohibiting the possession of illicit drugs in institutions where
prisoners are held applied to a state mental hospital.
Atascadero State Hospital (ASH) is one of four hospitals operated by the
California Department of Mental Health. Pursuant to state law, mentally
ill prisoners in the California Department of Corrections may be
transferred to ASH for treatment. At any given time approximately 125
prisoners are confined at ASH.
On February 9, 2003 a cop employed by ASH allegedly found two small
packets of methamphetamine in hospital worker Breanna Ortiz's purse. Ortiz
was subsequently charged with possession of methamphetamine for sale and
possession of a controlled substance in a place where prisoners are
located (Penal Code 4573.6), a felony punishable by 2 to 4 years in prison.
On Ortiz's motion, the trial court dismissed the 4573.6 count after
finding that the statute did not apply to ASH. The state appealed.
The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six,
reversed. The Court first noted that ASH is not a "place where prisoners
of the state are located under the custody of prison officials," as
defined by section 4573.6. Prisoners transferred to ASH for treatment are
cared for by the hospital and their return to prison is at the sole
discretion of the hospital superintendent. Therefore, prisoners being
treated at ASH are not "under the custody of prison officials."
However, the appeals court further held that because prisoner movement
within ASH is controlled by law enforcement officers employed by the
hospital, "ASH qualifies as an institution where inmates are held under
the custody of peace officers as contemplated by section 4573.6." Thus,
the law was applicable to ASH.
Accordingly, the appellate court ordered the 4573.6 charge against Ortiz
reinstated. See: The People v. Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County,
115 Cal.App.4th 995, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 745 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.,2004).
prohibiting the possession of illicit drugs in institutions where
prisoners are held applied to a state mental hospital.
Atascadero State Hospital (ASH) is one of four hospitals operated by the
California Department of Mental Health. Pursuant to state law, mentally
ill prisoners in the California Department of Corrections may be
transferred to ASH for treatment. At any given time approximately 125
prisoners are confined at ASH.
On February 9, 2003 a cop employed by ASH allegedly found two small
packets of methamphetamine in hospital worker Breanna Ortiz's purse. Ortiz
was subsequently charged with possession of methamphetamine for sale and
possession of a controlled substance in a place where prisoners are
located (Penal Code 4573.6), a felony punishable by 2 to 4 years in prison.
On Ortiz's motion, the trial court dismissed the 4573.6 count after
finding that the statute did not apply to ASH. The state appealed.
The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six,
reversed. The Court first noted that ASH is not a "place where prisoners
of the state are located under the custody of prison officials," as
defined by section 4573.6. Prisoners transferred to ASH for treatment are
cared for by the hospital and their return to prison is at the sole
discretion of the hospital superintendent. Therefore, prisoners being
treated at ASH are not "under the custody of prison officials."
However, the appeals court further held that because prisoner movement
within ASH is controlled by law enforcement officers employed by the
hospital, "ASH qualifies as an institution where inmates are held under
the custody of peace officers as contemplated by section 4573.6." Thus,
the law was applicable to ASH.
Accordingly, the appellate court ordered the 4573.6 charge against Ortiz
reinstated. See: The People v. Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County,
115 Cal.App.4th 995, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 745 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.,2004).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
The People v. Superior Court of San Luis Obispo Co
| Year | 2004 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 115 Cal.App.4th 995, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 745 (Cal.App. 2 |
| Level | State Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
People v. Ortiz, 115 Cal.App.4th 995, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 745 (Cal.App. Dist.2 02/17/2004)
[1] IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
[2] 2d Crim. No. B170471
[3] 115 Cal.App.4th 995, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 745, 2004
[4] February 17, 2004
[5] THE PEOPLE, PETITIONER,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, RESPONDENT; BREANNA NICOLE ORTIZ, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST.
[6] Christopher G. Money, Judge Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo (Super. Ct. No. F337922) (San Luis Obispo County)
[7] Gerald T. Shea, District Attorney, Curtis A. Rankin, Deputy District Attorney, for Petitioner.
[8] No appearance for Respondent.
[9] Patricia Nemec Ashbaugh for Real Party in Interest.
[10] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Perren, J.
[11] CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
[12] It is a felony for any person to possess a controlled substance in or within the grounds of certain state institutions. (Pen. Code, *fn1 § 4573.6.) Here we hold that the broad sweep of section 4573.6 includes state mental hospitals in which inmates, who have been transferred there for treatment pursuant to section 2684, are involuntarily confined under the custody of peace officers.
[13] An employee of Atascadero State Hospital (ASH) was charged with a violation of section 4573.6 after methamphetamine allegedly was found in her purse while she was on hospital grounds. The charge was premised on the fact that ASH houses mentally ill inmates who have been transferred there for treatment pursuant to section 2684. The trial court granted the defendant's section 995 motion to dismiss the charge on its finding that section 2684 patients are not located under the custody of prison officials while they are being treated at ASH. The court also rejected the People's contention that section 2684 patients are held under the custody of peace officers while undergoing treatment at ASH.
[14] The People petitioned for a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order granting the section 995 motion. Because the trial court erred in concluding that section 2684 patients housed at ASH are not held under the custody of peace officers as contemplated by section 4573.6, we shall grant the writ.
[15] FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[16] ASH is one of four hospitals in this state under the jurisdiction of the Department of Mental Health that were established for the care, treatment and education of mentally disordered individuals. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 4100, 7200.) Pursuant to section 2684, inmates confined in state prisons may be transferred to ASH for care and treatment. Approximately 125 such inmates are housed at ASH at any given time. Signs conspicuously posted at ASH provide notice that it is illegal to possess controlled substances within the hospital or on its grounds.
[17] On the afternoon of February 9, 2003, an ASH police officer discovered two small bindles of methamphetamine in the purse of employee Breanna Nicole Ortiz during a search on hospital grounds. Ortiz was subsequently charged by complaint with violations of section 4573.6 (possession of a controlled substance in a place where inmates are located) and Health and Safety Code section 11378 (possession of methamphetamine for sale).
[18] At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, the magistrate dismissed the section 4573.6 count on its finding that ASH is not a facility contemplated by the statute. The People subsequently filed an information reiterating the section 4573.6 charge. Ortiz moved to dismiss the charge pursuant to section 995, and the trial court granted the motion. The court rejected the People's claim that section 2684 inmates remain under the custody of the Department of Corrections while they are housed at ASH. The court further reasoned that an inmate who is transferred to ASH for treatment pursuant to section 2684 "comes into their custody, not the custody of police officers who may be working for the hospital, but custody of the hospital."
[19] The People timely sought writ relief from the trial court's ruling, and we issued an order to show cause why such relief should not be granted. Proceedings were stayed pending our decision on the petition.
[20] DISCUSSION
[21] I.
[22] Section 4573.6 provides in its entirety: "Any person who knowingly has in his or her possession in any state prison, prison road camp, prison forestry camp, or other prison camp or prison farm or any place where prisoners of the state are located under the custody of prison officials, officers, or employees, or in any county, city and county, or city jail, road camp, farm, or any place or institution, where prisoners or inmates are being held under the custody of any sheriff, chief of police, peace officer, probation officer, or employees, or within the grounds belonging to any jail, road camp, farm, place or institution, any controlled substances, the possession of which is prohibited by Division 10 (commencing with Section 11000) of the Health and Safety Code, any device, contrivance, instrument, or paraphernalia intended to be used for unlawfully injecting or consuming controlled substances, without being authorized to so possess the same by the rules of the Department of Corrections, rules of the prison or jail, institution, camp, farm or place, or by the specific authorization of the warden, superintendent, jailer, or other person in charge of the prison, jail, institution, camp, farm or place, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years. [¶] The prohibitions and sanctions addressed in this section shall be clearly and prominently posted outside of, and at the entrance to, the grounds of all detention facilities under the jurisdiction of, or operated by, the state or any city, county, or city and county."
[23] In granting Ortiz's section 995 motion to dismiss the charge brought against her under section 4573.6, the trial court concluded that section 2684 inmates are not in prison, located under the custody of prison officials, or held under the custody of peace officers while they are housed at ASH.
[24] Where, as here, the issue to be decided is purely one of statutory construction, the question is one of law subject to our de novo review. (See, e.g., City of Long Beach v. California Citizens for Neighborhood Empowerment (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 302, 305.) In construing a statute, we apply settled rules of statutory construction: "When construing a statute, we must ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. [W]e begin with the words of a statute and give these words their ordinary meaning. If the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, then we need go no further. If, however, the language supports more than one reasonable construction, we may consider a variety of extrinsic aids, including the ostensible objects to be achieved, the evils to be remedied, the legislative history, public policy, contemporaneous administrative construction, and the statutory scheme of which the statute is a part. Using these extrinsic aids, we select the construction that comports most closely with the apparent intent of the Legislature, with a view to promoting rather than defeating the general purpose of the statute, and avoid an interpretation that would lead to absurd consequences." (People v. Sinohui (2002) 28 Cal.4th 205, 211-212, citations and internal quotation marks omitted.)
[25] As we shall explain, mentally ill inmates transferred to ASH pursuant to section 2684 are neither in prison nor located under the custody of prison officials. We also conclude, however, that the inmates are held at ASH under the custody of peace officers employed by the hospital. Accordingly, the section 4573.6 charge against Ortiz was properly brought.
[1] IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX
[2] 2d Crim. No. B170471
[3] 115 Cal.App.4th 995, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 745, 2004
[4] February 17, 2004
[5] THE PEOPLE, PETITIONER,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, RESPONDENT; BREANNA NICOLE ORTIZ, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST.
[6] Christopher G. Money, Judge Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo (Super. Ct. No. F337922) (San Luis Obispo County)
[7] Gerald T. Shea, District Attorney, Curtis A. Rankin, Deputy District Attorney, for Petitioner.
[8] No appearance for Respondent.
[9] Patricia Nemec Ashbaugh for Real Party in Interest.
[10] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Perren, J.
[11] CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
[12] It is a felony for any person to possess a controlled substance in or within the grounds of certain state institutions. (Pen. Code, *fn1 § 4573.6.) Here we hold that the broad sweep of section 4573.6 includes state mental hospitals in which inmates, who have been transferred there for treatment pursuant to section 2684, are involuntarily confined under the custody of peace officers.
[13] An employee of Atascadero State Hospital (ASH) was charged with a violation of section 4573.6 after methamphetamine allegedly was found in her purse while she was on hospital grounds. The charge was premised on the fact that ASH houses mentally ill inmates who have been transferred there for treatment pursuant to section 2684. The trial court granted the defendant's section 995 motion to dismiss the charge on its finding that section 2684 patients are not located under the custody of prison officials while they are being treated at ASH. The court also rejected the People's contention that section 2684 patients are held under the custody of peace officers while undergoing treatment at ASH.
[14] The People petitioned for a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order granting the section 995 motion. Because the trial court erred in concluding that section 2684 patients housed at ASH are not held under the custody of peace officers as contemplated by section 4573.6, we shall grant the writ.
[15] FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[16] ASH is one of four hospitals in this state under the jurisdiction of the Department of Mental Health that were established for the care, treatment and education of mentally disordered individuals. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 4100, 7200.) Pursuant to section 2684, inmates confined in state prisons may be transferred to ASH for care and treatment. Approximately 125 such inmates are housed at ASH at any given time. Signs conspicuously posted at ASH provide notice that it is illegal to possess controlled substances within the hospital or on its grounds.
[17] On the afternoon of February 9, 2003, an ASH police officer discovered two small bindles of methamphetamine in the purse of employee Breanna Nicole Ortiz during a search on hospital grounds. Ortiz was subsequently charged by complaint with violations of section 4573.6 (possession of a controlled substance in a place where inmates are located) and Health and Safety Code section 11378 (possession of methamphetamine for sale).
[18] At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, the magistrate dismissed the section 4573.6 count on its finding that ASH is not a facility contemplated by the statute. The People subsequently filed an information reiterating the section 4573.6 charge. Ortiz moved to dismiss the charge pursuant to section 995, and the trial court granted the motion. The court rejected the People's claim that section 2684 inmates remain under the custody of the Department of Corrections while they are housed at ASH. The court further reasoned that an inmate who is transferred to ASH for treatment pursuant to section 2684 "comes into their custody, not the custody of police officers who may be working for the hospital, but custody of the hospital."
[19] The People timely sought writ relief from the trial court's ruling, and we issued an order to show cause why such relief should not be granted. Proceedings were stayed pending our decision on the petition.
[20] DISCUSSION
[21] I.
[22] Section 4573.6 provides in its entirety: "Any person who knowingly has in his or her possession in any state prison, prison road camp, prison forestry camp, or other prison camp or prison farm or any place where prisoners of the state are located under the custody of prison officials, officers, or employees, or in any county, city and county, or city jail, road camp, farm, or any place or institution, where prisoners or inmates are being held under the custody of any sheriff, chief of police, peace officer, probation officer, or employees, or within the grounds belonging to any jail, road camp, farm, place or institution, any controlled substances, the possession of which is prohibited by Division 10 (commencing with Section 11000) of the Health and Safety Code, any device, contrivance, instrument, or paraphernalia intended to be used for unlawfully injecting or consuming controlled substances, without being authorized to so possess the same by the rules of the Department of Corrections, rules of the prison or jail, institution, camp, farm or place, or by the specific authorization of the warden, superintendent, jailer, or other person in charge of the prison, jail, institution, camp, farm or place, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years. [¶] The prohibitions and sanctions addressed in this section shall be clearly and prominently posted outside of, and at the entrance to, the grounds of all detention facilities under the jurisdiction of, or operated by, the state or any city, county, or city and county."
[23] In granting Ortiz's section 995 motion to dismiss the charge brought against her under section 4573.6, the trial court concluded that section 2684 inmates are not in prison, located under the custody of prison officials, or held under the custody of peace officers while they are housed at ASH.
[24] Where, as here, the issue to be decided is purely one of statutory construction, the question is one of law subject to our de novo review. (See, e.g., City of Long Beach v. California Citizens for Neighborhood Empowerment (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 302, 305.) In construing a statute, we apply settled rules of statutory construction: "When construing a statute, we must ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. [W]e begin with the words of a statute and give these words their ordinary meaning. If the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, then we need go no further. If, however, the language supports more than one reasonable construction, we may consider a variety of extrinsic aids, including the ostensible objects to be achieved, the evils to be remedied, the legislative history, public policy, contemporaneous administrative construction, and the statutory scheme of which the statute is a part. Using these extrinsic aids, we select the construction that comports most closely with the apparent intent of the Legislature, with a view to promoting rather than defeating the general purpose of the statute, and avoid an interpretation that would lead to absurd consequences." (People v. Sinohui (2002) 28 Cal.4th 205, 211-212, citations and internal quotation marks omitted.)
[25] As we shall explain, mentally ill inmates transferred to ASH pursuant to section 2684 are neither in prison nor located under the custody of prison officials. We also conclude, however, that the inmates are held at ASH under the custody of peace officers employed by the hospital. Accordingly, the section 4573.6 charge against Ortiz was properly brought.