Court Opinion

ID: 9744776
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:15:44.937939+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:51.565658
License: Public Domain

BLEASE, Acting P. J., Concurring.
I concur in the judgment and opinion except as to part II of the Discussion, as to which I dissent. I would reverse the judgment as to count two, the use of a minor to transport cocaine.
The majority opinion has mislaid its grammar book. It pays no attention to the language of Health and Safety Code section 11353. “[T]o unlawfully transport” a controlled substance means to “carry” as the succeeding term says. (§ 11353.) It does not say “in” the transportation of or in the carrying of a controlled substance. Moreover, the operative terms to “hire[], employ[], or use[]” a minor to transport drugs patently mean to employ or use them to transport drugs. (§ 11353.) It does no good to resort to the intention of the Legislature to levitate the meaning when the intention is to be derived from the language *1239of the statute. As the majority opinion notes, “there is no reported case concerning the issue presented here . . . .” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 1237.) The reason is obvious.
Appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied May 23, 2007, S151178.