Chenze

People v. Chenze

Good Law
118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 362·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 2935·2002 Daily Journal DAR 3704·97 Cal. App. 4th 521·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3059
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 14, 2002G027398California2,585 words

Opinion

Opinion

O'Leary, J.

Steven Allen Chenze appeals his felony conviction for battery on a custodial officer under Penal Code section 243.1. He contends section 243.1 was impliedly repealed by an amendment to section 243, which provides that a battery on a custodial officer is a misdemeanor (§ 243, subd. (b)); but if injury is inflicted, it may be sentenced as a misdemeanor or a felony (§ 243, subd. (c)(1)). He also complains the evidence was insufficient, the jury instructions were inadequate, and his counsel was incompetent. We reject his contentions and affirm.

Chenze was arrested on drug charges and held at the Anaheim Police Department jail. While being transported to court, he “head-butted” one of the custodial officers.

The victim, Donald Briggs, did not testify at trial because he was out of town on vacation. Andrew Gaydos, another custodial officer at the jail, testified for the prosecution. Gaydos was the transportation officer responsible for getting Chenze to court. He testified that Briggs was also a custodial officer at the Anaheim jail and their duties involved booking, custody and movement of prisoners in the jail.

Gaydos and several other officers, including Briggs and…

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.