Opinion ID: 1177637
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Territorial Limits of California Law

Text: (8) Relying on People v. Buffum (1953) 40 Cal.2d 709 [256 P.2d 317], defendants argue that, apart from any federal conflict, their conduct is not punishable in California as a matter of traditional state law because, standing independently, the violations occurred beyond California territory. However, it is well established that unless the Legislature provides otherwise, those defendants are punishable in California ... who commit, in whole or in part, any crime within ... California. (Pen. Code, § 27, subd. 1.) Similarly, Penal Code section 778a provides, Whenever a person, with intent to commit a crime, does any act within this state in execution or part execution of such intent, which culminates in the commission of a crime, either within or without this state, such person is punishable for such crime in this state in the same manner as if the same had been committed entirely within this state. Defendants contend that any of their acts which occurred within California were mere preparations and did not constitute technical attempts to violate fishing regulations. (40 Cal.2d at p. 718.) Buffum is inapplicable. The completed violations in the case before us occurred well within the state boundaries as defined by our state Constitution and statutes. (Cal. Const., art. III, § 2; Gov. Code, §§ 170-171, all supra. ) These are the limits to which the Legislature implicitly intended to extend California's criminal laws, including Fish and Game Code section 2000. As we have observed, California's territorial boundaries and, therefore, the extent of its criminal jurisdiction are restricted when they conflict with federal and international law. The factual record before us presents no such conflict. The judgments of conviction are affirmed.