Mejia

Our Supreme Court says this about the subject at hand (except when it is saying the opposite) 1 : “When the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, there is no need for construction and courts should not indulge in it. [Citation.] The plain language of the statute establishes what was intended by the Legislature. (See People v. Ramirez (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 559, 566 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 374 ] [it is unnecessary to look beyond the plain words of the statute to determine intent].)” (People v. Fuhrman (1997) 16 Cal.4th 930, 937 [ 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 941 P.2d 1189 ]; Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 921 [ 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 309 , 911 P.2d 496 ].)

The statute we deal with here proscribes possession of a firearm “in a place that the person knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone. . . .” (Pen. Code, § 626.9, subd. (b).) The statute defines a school zone as the area “within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of [a] public or private school.” (Pen. Code, § 626.9, subd. (e)(1).) Whatever the wisdom of this legislation—and there is some evidence it was “inadvertently passed” 2 —the language is clear enough: Thou shalt not be within 1,000 feet of a school with…

Rene Mejia appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm within a school zone. (Pen. Code, § 626.9; all further statutory references are to the Penal Code.) He claims the trial court misinstructed the jury on what constitutes possession within a school zone. (§ 626.9, subd. (e)(1).) We conclude the court’s instructions were correct and affirm the judgment of conviction.

Facts

Police officers observed defendant’s stopped vehicle facing the wrong direction on Western between Wisteria and Highland. The center of Western demarcates a 1,000-foot perimeter surrounding the Monte Vista School.

The officers initiated a traffic stop. Defendant, the driver and sole occupant of the car, did not yield, but jumped out of his moving vehicle and fled. He was apprehended a short distance away from the car. During the pursuit, an officer saw a shiny metal object in his hand. He retraced defendant’s steps and located a .380-caliber handgun.

At trial, defense and prosecution experts testified extensively about various measurements of the area surrounding Monte Vista School. Despite the differences in their testimony, defendant concedes at least part of his car was within 1,000 feet…

Rene Mejia appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm within a school zone. (Pen.Code, § 626.9; all further statutory references are to the Penal Code.) He claims the trial court misinstructed the jury on what constitutes possession within a school zone. (§ 626.9, subd. (e)(1).) We conclude the court's instructions were correct and affirm the judgment of conviction.

Police officers observed defendant's stopped vehicle facing the wrong direction on Western between Wisteria and Highland. The center of Western demarcates a 1000-foot perimeter surrounding the Monte Vista School.

The officers initiated a traffic stop. Defendant, the driver and sole occupant of the car, did not yield, but jumped out of his moving vehicle and fled. He was apprehended a short distance away from the car. During the pursuit, an officer saw a shiny metal object in his hand. He retraced defendant's steps and located a .380 caliber handgun.

At trial, defense and prosecution experts testified extensively about various measurements of the area surrounding Monte Vista School. Despite the differences in their testimony, defendant concedes at least part of his car was within 1,000 feet of…