Plumlee

People v. Plumlee

Good Law
166 Cal. App. 4th 935·2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 1410·83 Cal. Rptr. 3d 172
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 10, 2008F054363California1,924 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wiseman, J.

A switchblade knife as defined in Penal Code section 653k can also be a dirk or dagger concealed on the person as defined in section 12020, even if it is concealed in its closed position. The superior court erred when, taking the contrary view, it refused to hold defendant Gary Plumlee to answer to a charge of violating section 12020 and later denied the People’s motion to reinstate the charge. The record reveals rational grounds for holding Plumlee to answer, so the charge must be reinstated.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORIES

The district attorney filed a felony complaint against Plumlee on December 4, 2006, charging two counts: carrying a dirk or dagger concealed upon the person (§ 12020, subd. (a)(4)) and using or being under the influence of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a)). For purposes of determining probation eligibility under section 1203, subdivision (e)(4), the complaint alleged that Plumlee had committed three prior felonies.

At the preliminary hearing on November 9, 2007, a sheriff’s deputy testified that he saw Plumlee at the casino at the Tule River Indian Reservation on August 26, 2006. Plumlee was “constantly moving around, unable…

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.