People v. Ventura CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Appellant contends that we should extend the merger doctrine which limits felony murder rule liability and reverse his conviction of assaulting the victim with the intent to commit rape during a residential burglary. (§ 220, subd. (b).) He argues that the assault merged with the rape of an intoxicated person. (§ 261, subd. (a)(3).) We disagree. Section 220, subdivision (b) provides in relevant part as follows: "Any person who, in the commission of a burglary of the first degree, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 460 [a residential burglary], assaults another with intent to commit rape, . . . shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life with the possibility of parole." It is the duty of this court in construing a statute to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature. We begin with the language of the statute, affording the words their ordinary and usual meaning and viewing them in their statutory context. (People v. Farley (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1053, 1118.) "[T]he power to define crimes and fix penalties is vested exclusively in the legislative branch. The courts may not expand the Legislature's definition of a crime nor may…