This chapter will discuss the development of a strategy for using California forms of post-conviction relief to ameliorate or eliminate adverse immigration consequences of criminal convictions and sentences.

Other

CAL POST CON " STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
People v. Johnson, 211 Cal.App.4th 252, 149 Cal.Rptr.3d 482 (4th Dist. Nov. 20, 2012) (rules of statutory interpretation). The court described common rules of statutory construction as follows: In interpreting this statute, we must ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. ( People v. Lewis (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 294, 298, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 40.) The fundamental rule of statutory construction is that a court should ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the statute as a whole. ( People v. Gardeley (1996) 14 Cal.4th 605, 621, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 356, 927 P.2d 713; Tripp v. Swoap (1976) 17 Cal.3d 671, 679, 131 Cal.Rptr. 789, 552 P.2d 749.) When statutory language is clear and unambiguous there is no need for construction, and courts should not indulge in it. ( People v. Boyd (1979) 24 Cal.3d 285, 294, 155 Cal.Rptr. 367, 594 P.2d 484.) Where different words or phrases are used in the same connection in different parts of a statute, it is presumed the Legislature intended a different meaning. ( Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1106, 1117, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 471, 969 P.2d 564.) Courts are required to give meaning to every word of a statute if possible and should avoid a construction that makes any word surplusage. ( Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 1118, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 471, 969 P.2d 564.) We give the statutory language its usual, ordinary import and accord significance, if possible, to every word, phrase and sentence in pursuance of the legislative purpose. ( People v. Mgebrov (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 579, 585, 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 778.) If the plain language of the statute is unambiguous and does not involve an absurdity, then the plain meaning governs. ( Lewis v. Clark (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 563, 567, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 749.) Every word and phrase is presumed to be intended to have meaning and perform a useful function. ( People v. Kennedy (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1239, 86 Cal.Rptr.3d 236.) A construction rendering some words in the statute useless or redundant is to be avoided. ( People v. Contreras (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 760, 764, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 233.) Interpretation of a statute is reviewed de novo. ( People v. Mgebrov, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 585, 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 778.) (Id. at ___.)