How have courts interpreted the plain meaning of a statute in the context of construction?

"It is settled that ' "We are required to give effect to statutes 'according to the usual, ordinary import of the language employed in framing them.' ..." ' [Citation.] Stated otherwise, 'When statutory language is thus clear and unambiguous there is no need for construction, and the courts should not indulge in it.' [Citations.] [p ] We have declined to follow the plain meaning of a statute only when it would inevitably have frustrated the manifest purposes of the legislation as a whole or led to absurd results. [Citations.]" (People v. Belleci (1979) 24 Cal.3d 879, 884, 157 Cal.Rptr. 503, 598 P.2d 473.)