Court Opinion

ID: 9685315
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:30:04.69896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:04.611807
License: Public Domain

WERDEGAR, J.,
Concurring. — I concur in the result reached by the majority, which permits imposition of a sentence enhancement on defendant pursuant to Penal Code section 12022.53. (All statutory references are to this code.) I write separately because I do not join in the majority’s reasoning.
As the majority explains, “[t]his case involves the interplay between two highly complex statutes: section 186.22, which targets participants in criminal street gangs, and section 12022.53, also known as ‘the 10-20-life law’ [citation], which ‘prescribes substantial sentence enhancements for using a firearm in the commission of certain listed felonies’ [citation].” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 570.) Although parsing the provisions of these statutes is tedious, addressing their interplay is not so difficult, for the Legislature has already set the ground rules. Thus, subdivision (e) of section 12022.53 specifically addresses how these two statutes interact. It provides: “(e)(1) The enhancements provided in this section shall apply to any person who is a principal in the commission of an offense if both of the following are pled and proved: H] (A) The person violated subdivision (b) of Section 186.22 [concerning felonies committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang]. [][] (B) Any principal in the offense committed any act specified in subdivision (b), (c), or (d) [that is, the principal used or discharged a firearm, or discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury or death], [][] (2) An enhancement for participation in a criminal street gang pursuant to Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 186.20) of Title 7 of Part 1 shall not be imposed on a person in addition to an enhancement imposed pursuant to this subdivision, unless the person personally used or personally discharged a firearm in the commission of the offense.” (Ibid.)
As can be seen, although the penalties provided in section 12022.53, subdivisions (b) to (d) apply only to those who in the commission of a felony specified in subdivision (a) personally used or discharged a firearm, section 12022.53, subdivision (e) creates an exception to that scheme.1 Addressing offenders who commit an offense that makes them subject to both section 186.22, subdivision (b) (the California Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act; hereafter the STEP Act) and the 10-20-life law, section *58112022.53, subdivision (e)(1) permits imposition of the 10-20-life enhancement if a principal in the qualifying crime personally uses or discharges a firearm. Subdivision (e)(2) of section 12022.53, in turn, permits imposition of both a STEP Act penalty and a 10-20-life enhancement for those STEP Act violators who themselves personally use or discharge a firearm. By clear implication, then, if an offender who is convicted of violating section 186.22, subdivision (b) did not personally use or discharge a firearm, he is subject either to the penalty prescribed in the STEP Act or to a 10-20-life enhancement, but not to both.
Section 12022.53, subdivision (e) appears to embody completely the Legislature’s intent on the subject of the interplay between sections 186.22 and 12022.53. As a specific provision on this subject, it is determinative. (Cf. Salazar v. Eastin (1995) 9 Cal.4th 836, 857 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 21, 890 P.2d 43] [“Under well-established principles of statutory interpretation, the more specific provision [citation] takes precedence over the more general one [citation].”].) Accordingly, to engage, as the majority does, in endeavoring to answer questions of improper bootstrapping (maj. opn., ante, at pp. 572-573), the meaning of “penalty provisions” versus “enhancements” (id. at p. 576),2 or whether a felony “punishable by . . . imprisonment in the state prison for life” (§ 12022.53, subd. (a)(17)) includes a crime whose punishment is elevated to a life term by the STEP Act (maj. opn., ante, at pp. 575-578) is unnecessary. Instead, we need determine only whether defendant was convicted of a crime to which the STEP Act applied (he was) and whether he personally used or discharged a firearm (he did). According to the plain and express terms of subdivision (e)(2) of section 12022.53, then, he is subject to the full force of both penalty statutes.
I understand, as the majority explains (maj. opn., ante, at pp. 578-579), that subdivision (b)(4)(B) of section 186.22, imposing a life term for some crimes, was enacted after section 12022.53, subdivision (e), but nothing in that circumstance suggests the Legislature intended to alter the scope of section 12022.53, subdivision (e). “The Legislature, of course, is deemed to be aware of statutes . . . already in existence, and to have enacted or amended a statute in light thereof.” (People v. Harrison (1989) 48 Cal.3d 321, 329 [256 Cal.Rptr. 401, 768 P.2d 1078]; see Fairbanks v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 56, 62 [92 Cal.Rptr.3d 279, 205 P.3d 201] [same].)
*582Conclusion
Because the majority affirms the Court of Appeal’s decision, I concur in the result. Unlike the majority, however, I would accord primacy to the specific terms of subdivision (e) of section 12022.53 to justify the conclusion permitting imposition of a 10-20-life enhancement on this defendant.
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied October 28, 2009. Baxter, J., did not participate therein.

 By its terms, section 12022.53, subdivision (e), unlike subdivisions (b), (c) and (d), does not require a qualifying offense be also listed in subdivision (a).

 By relying on the alleged distinction between a “penalty provision” (also known as an “ ‘alternate penalty’ ” or “ ‘alternate sentence’ ”) and an enhancement (maj. opn., ante, at p. 576), the majority introduces no small amount of uncertainty and inconsistency into the law, for in a companion case filed this same day, the majority purports to disclaim this distinction. (People v. Brookfield (2009) 47 Cal.4th 583, 592-595 [98 Cal.Rptr.3d 535, 213 P.3d 988].) I agree the distinction is not useful in this context and so have signed the majority opinion in Brookfield. But the majority’s reliance on it here is troubling, and I do not join such reasoning.