Opinion ID: 178471
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: State statutory definitions

Text: [H]ow a state characterizes its own offenses and sentences generally is not relevant to a federal sentence calculation. United States v. Mendoza-Morales, 347 F.3d 772, 776(9th Cir.2003). For example, [t]his Court has ruled that in deciding whether a prior state conviction should be counted for purposes of a federal criminal history calculation, a district court must examine federal law. Id. However, a review of the relevant California statutes in this case further illustrates the potentially ambiguous nature of the term arrest, as it has evolved in the legal sense. California Penal Code § 834 provides that [a]n arrest is taking a person into custody, in a case and in the manner authorized by law. However, the specific section of the California Penal Code pursuant to which Leal-Felix received his citations, § 40303, provides a procedure by which the arresting officer in lieu of taking the individual before a magistrate, may give the arrested person a 10 days' notice to appear (a citation). The interaction of these two sections may be read to create an ambiguity by providing that an arrested person may receive a citation when an arrest does not occur until a person is taken into custody. Further, the Supreme Court of California has stated that when the officer determines there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and begins the process of citing the violator to appear in court, an `arrest' takes place at least in the technical sense. People v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 7 Cal.3d 186, 101 Cal.Rptr. 837, 496 P.2d 1205, 1213 (1972).