People v. Allard CA4/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 31, 2025G063612California874 words

Opinion

Opinion

Moore, J.

DISCUSSION

I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The proper interpretation of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo, under well-settled standards. (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 961.) In interpreting a statute, ‘“[o]ur fundamental task . . . is to determine the Legislature’s intent so as to effectuate the law’s purpose. We first examine the statutory language, giving it a plain and commonsense meaning . . . . If the language is clear, courts must generally follow its plain meaning unless a literal interpretation would result in absurd consequences the Legislature did not intend. If the statutory language permits more than one reasonable interpretation, courts may consider other aids, such as the statute’s purpose, legislative history, and public policy.’” (Sierra Club v. Superior Court (2013) 57 Cal.4th 157, 165–166.) “We must look to the statute’s words and give them their usual and ordinary meaning.” (People v. Gonzalez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1118, 1126.)

2 Both the petition and the trial court’s order denying the petition

indicate Allard was identified by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) as an inmate potentially eligible for…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.