MALLANO
Reversed.
See 2 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Crimes Against Public Peace and Welfare, § 213. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Monica Bachner, Judge. Reversed. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA388585) Joy A. Maulitz, San Francisco, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Lawrence M. Daniels, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and William H. Shin, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
MALLANO, P. J.
Defendant Kevin Pellecer appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of carrying a concealed dirk or dagger on his person in violation of former Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a)(4). Defendant contends that his conviction is not supported by substantial evidence because the knives he possessed were inside of his backpack, and he was thus not carrying them on his person. He raises related contentions of misinstruction of the jury and vagueness of the statute. We agree that defendant did not violate the statute because the knives in his backpack were not carried on his person. Accordingly, we reverse defendant's conviction.
Penal Code section 12020 was repealed, effective January 1, 2012. (Stats.2010, ch. 711, § 4.) The current equivalent statute is Penal Code section 21310, which provides, “Except as provided in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, any person in this state who carries concealed upon the person any dirk or dagger is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.” (Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) In 2011, as now, a “ ‘dirk’ or ‘dagger’ means a knife or other instrument with or without a handguard that is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon that may inflict great bodily injury or death.” (§ 16470; former § 12020, subd. (a)(24).)
In light of our conclusion that defendant did not violate former section 12020, subdivision (a)(4), we need not address his remaining contentions. Because we reverse for insufficiency of evidence, defendant may not be retried.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed. We concur:
ROTHSCHILD, J.
CHANEY, J.
-------- Notes: