Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
167 California opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2026 54 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Albillargreen2 sentences2023(See, e.g., People v. Albillar (2010) 51 Cal.4th 47, 63 [“[e]xpert opinion that particular criminal conduct benefited a gang by enhancing its reputation for viciousness can be sufficient to raise the inference that the conduct was ‘committed for the benefit of ... a[ ] criminal street gang’ within the meaning of section 186.22(b)(1)’ ”].) Because Flores committed the crime of accessory after the fact to assist Garcia, an active Fresno Bulldog gang member, the jury could also find she had the specific intent to 18. promote, further, or assist criminal conduct by a member of the gang. 2022(Id. at pp. 62-63.) We explained that “[e]xpert opinion that particular criminal conduct benefited a gang by enhancing its reputation for viciousness can be sufficient to raise the inference that the conduct was ‘committed for the benefit of . . . a[] criminal street gang’ within the meaning of section 186.22(b)(1).” (Albillar, at p. 63.) As for the second requirement of the enhancement, we said that when the evidence “establishes that the defendant intended to and did commit the charged felony with known members of a gang, the jury may fairly infer that the defendant had the specific intent t | 14 | 54 |
People v. Xue Vanggreen2 sentences2021(People v. Ramirez (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 800, 819-820 (Ramirez).) Nevertheless, gang experts play a central role in establishing both prongs of the section 186.22 enhancement. “ ‘Expert opinion that particular criminal conduct benefited a gang’ is not only permissible but can be sufficient to support the Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1), gang enhancement. [Citation.]” (Vang, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 1048 .) “Expert opinion that particular criminal conduct benefited a gang by enhancing its reputation for viciousness can be sufficient to raise the inference that the conduct was ‘com 2021(People v. Vang (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1038, 1048 [“ ‘[e]xpert opinion that particular criminal conduct benefited a gang’ is not only permissible but can be sufficient to support the . . . gang enhancement”]; see also People v. Albillar, supra, at p. 63 [“[e]xpert opinion that particular criminal conduct benefited a gang by enhancing its reputation for viciousness can be sufficient to raise the inference that the conduct was ‘committed for the benefit of . . . a[ ] criminal street gang’ within the meaning of § 186.22[, subd.] (b)(1)”].) 13 In addition, the prosecution must prove the relevant group | 6 | 19 |
People v. Bricenogreen2 sentences2025Under section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(28), a serious felony includes any prior “felony offense, which would also constitute a felony violation of Section 186.22.” “[S]ection 1192.7(c)(28) includes within its ambit any felony offense committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang under the section 186.22(b)(1) gang sentence enhancement.” (Briceno, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 459 .) We requested supplemental briefing on the relevance, if any, of Assembly Bill No. 333 (Assembly Bill 333). 2025(Jackson, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 833 .)2 Here, the relevant inquiry is whether the prior conviction was for “any felony offense, which would also constitute a felony violation of Section 186.22.” (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(28).) This definition includes the substantive offense of active participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a)) as well as “any felony offense committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang under the section 186.22[, subdivision] (b)(1) gang sentence enhancement.” (Briceno, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 459 .) Where a serious felony is defined by reference to a speci | 6 | 15 |
People v. Ochoagreen2 sentences2019(People v. Perez (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 598, 607 .) “The gang enhancement cannot be sustained based solely on defendant’s status as a member of the gang and his subsequent commission of crimes. [Citation.]” (People v. Ochoa (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 650, 663 (Ochoa).) “Expert opinion that particular criminal conduct benefited a gang by enhancing its reputation for viciousness can be sufficient to raise the inference that the conduct was ‘committed for the benefit of … a[] criminal street gang’ within the meaning of section 186.22(b)(1). [Citations.]” (Albillar, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 63 .) As a s 2014(Ochoa, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th at p. 661, fn. 6 .) 33 of the gang committing a rape, which elevates the gang’s “ ‘reputation to be a violent, aggressive gang that stops at nothing and does not care for anyone’s humanity.’ ” (Id. at p. 63.) The Supreme Court held that “[e]xpert opinion that particular criminal conduct benefited a gang by enhancing its reputation for viciousness can be sufficient to raise the inference that the conduct was ‘committed for the benefit of . . . a[] criminal street gang’ within the meaning of section 186.22(b)(1).” (Albillar, at p. 63.) As for the specific intent pr | 5 | 5 |
People v. Gardeleyred2 sentences2016(See People v. Gardeley (1996) 14 Cal.4th 605, 624-625 .) An investigator on 25 gang killings explained that he has investigated gang fights that escalated into deadly violence, and that gangs settle disputes differently than other people. 7 We note that Scott makes no challenge on appeal to the jury’s finding the murder was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C). 13 We conclude substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that murder was a natural and probable consequence of the initial assault on Lister. 2015As our Supreme Court has observed, “[e]xpert opinion that particular criminal conduct benefited a gang by enhancing its reputation for viciousness can be sufficient to raise the inference that the conduct was ‘committed for the benefit of . . . a[] criminal street gang’ within the meaning of section 186.22(b)(1).” (People v. Albillar (2010) 51 Cal.4th 47, 63 ; accord People v. Gardeley (1996) 14 Cal.4th 605, 619 [from expert testimony that assault was “‘classic’” gang activity that frightened residents and secured gang’s drug-dealing stronghold in the area, jury could reasonably conclude charg | 4 | 14 |
People v. Vazquezgreen2 sentences2015As our Supreme Court has observed, “[e]xpert opinion that particular criminal conduct benefited a gang by enhancing its reputation for viciousness can be sufficient to raise the inference that the conduct was ‘committed for the benefit of . . . a[] criminal street gang’ within the meaning of section 186.22(b)(1).” (People v. Albillar (2010) 51 Cal.4th 47, 63 ; accord People v. Gardeley (1996) 14 Cal.4th 605, 619 [from expert testimony that assault was “‘classic’” gang activity that frightened residents and secured gang’s drug-dealing stronghold in the area, jury could reasonably conclude charg 2014As our Supreme Court has observed, “[e]xpert opinion that particular criminal conduct benefited a gang by enhancing its reputation for viciousness can be sufficient to raise the inference that the conduct was ‘committed for the benefit of . . . a[] criminal street gang’ within the meaning of section 186.22(b)(1).” (People v. Albillar (2010) 51 Cal.4th 47, 63 ; accord People v. Gardeley (1996) 14 Cal.4th 605, 619 [from expert testimony that assault was “‘classic’” gang activity that frightened residents and secured gang’s drug- dealing stronghold in the area, jury could reasonably conclude char | 4 | 6 |
People v. Sanchezgreen2 sentences2020Code, § 16470)1 is unconstitutionally vague; (2) the trial court erred in allowing two officers to testify to the legal definition of a dirk; (3) a gang expert provided improper opinion testimony that defendant committed a crime to benefit a gang; and (4) insufficient evidence established the existence of a criminal street gang under section 186.22 because testimony concerning the predicate felonies was admitted in violation of People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 (Sanchez). 2019Code, § 16470)1 is unconstitutionally vague; (2) the trial court erred in allowing two officers to testify to the legal definition of a dirk; (3) a gang expert provided improper opinion testimony that defendant committed a crime to benefit a gang; and (4) insufficient evidence established the existence of a criminal street gang under section 186.22 because testimony concerning the predicate felonies was admitted in violation of People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 (Sanchez). | 3 | 7 |
People v. Lopezred2 sentences2022(People v. Lopez (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 327 , 343 (Lopez).) When Franco was tried, he stipulated that he was a member of the Southeast Locos, a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22. 2022Because the evidence adduced at trial to prove the charges is no longer sufficient under the new law, we must reverse defendants’ convictions for active participation in a criminal street gang under section 186.22, subdivision (a) and vacate the true findings on their criminal street gang enhancements under section 186.22, subdivision (b) on counts 1 and 2. 25 Further, Rincon contends the changes made by Assembly Bill 333 affect not only the gang enhancement allegations under section 186.22, but other statutes that incorporate section 186.22 by reference, including section 12022.53.10 (Lopez, | 3 | 7 |
People v. Moralesgreen2 sentences2022The elements of street terrorism are: “(1) active participation in a criminal street gang, in the sense of participation that is more than nominal or passive; (2) knowledge that the gang’s members engage in or have engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity; and (3) the willful promotion, furtherance, or assistance in any felonious criminal conduct by members of that gang. [Citation.] All three elements can be satisfied without proof the felonious criminal conduct promoted, furthered, or assisted was gang related.” (People v. Albillar (2010) 51 Cal.4th 47, 56 .) Appellant’s claim fails bec 2019(People v. Perez (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 598, 607 .) “The gang enhancement cannot be sustained based solely on defendant’s status as a member of the gang and his subsequent commission of crimes. [Citation.]” (People v. Ochoa (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 650, 663 (Ochoa).) “Expert opinion that particular criminal conduct benefited a gang by enhancing its reputation for viciousness can be sufficient to raise the inference that the conduct was ‘committed for the benefit of … a[] criminal street gang’ within the meaning of section 186.22(b)(1). [Citations.]” (Albillar, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 63 .) As a s | 3 | 7 |
| People v. Brookfieldgreen | 3 | 3 |
People v. Pruntygreen2 sentences2021“The Prunty court, however, specifically declined to hold that a broader ‘umbrella’ group such as the Norteños or Sureños could not constitute a criminal street gang under section 186.22.” (People v. Pettie (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 23, 49 (Pettie).) Prunty explained that its rule applies only “where the prosecution’s theory of why a criminal street gang exists turns on the conduct of one or more gang subsets, not simply to those in which the prosecution alleges the existence of ‘a broader umbrella gang.’ ” (Prunty, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 71, fn. 2 .) In Prunty, the evidence showed that the defen 2021“The Prunty court, however, specifically declined to hold that a broader ‘umbrella’ group such as the Norteños or Sureños could not constitute a criminal street gang under section 186.22.” (People v. Pettie (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 23, 49 (Pettie).) Prunty explained that its rule applies only “where the prosecution’s theory of why a criminal street gang exists turns on the conduct of one or more gang subsets, not simply to those in which the prosecution alleges the existence of ‘a broader umbrella gang.’ ” (Prunty, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 71, fn. 2 .) In Prunty, the evidence showed that the defen | 2 | 10 |
People v. Leegreen2 sentences2023However, the voters reenacted section 186.22, subdivision (f) without substantive change. [Citation.] As such, subdivision (f) of section 186.22 cannot be deemed ‘among the initiative’s statutory provisions’ made immune from legislative amendment by force of article II, section 10 of the state Constitution.” (Lee, at p. 242.) “In short, the voters left intact the Legislature’s power to amend the definition of a criminal street gang in section 186.22, subdivision (f).” (Lee, at p. 242.) In People v. Lopez, supra, 82 Cal.App.5th 1 , relying on Lee, supra, 81 Cal.App.5th 232 , another panel from 2023As the court in Lee observed when addressing this issue, “the electorate clearly knew how to express the intent to freeze a statutory definition.” (Lee, supra, 81 Cal.App.5th at p. 243.) In two other instances, Proposition 21 expressly stated references to existing statutes were “ ‘to those statutes as they existed on the effective date of this act, including amendments made to those statutes by this act.’ ” (Ibid., italics omitted; see also Ballot Pamphlet, supra, text of Prop. 21, §§ 14, 16, pp. 123– 124.) But newly added section 190.2(a)(22) did not similarly incorporate the definition of c | 2 | 8 |
People v. Riosgreen2 sentences2020Cal.4th 605, 618, disapproved on other ground in People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, 683 .) Because “[n]ot every crime committed by gang members is related to a gang” ( Albillar, supra, 51 Cal.4th at pp. 59-60), an expert’s opinion that a crime was committed to benefit a gang must rest upon more than the assumed occurrence of the charged offense, evidence that a defendant is a gang member, and generalizations about gang culture or habits ( Perez, supra, 18 Cal.App.5th at pp. 612-613; People v. Rios (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 542 , 573-574 (Rios); People v. Ochoa (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 650, 65 2019The Specific Intent Prong “Second, there must be evidence that the crimes were committed ‘with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members,’ ” described as “the specific intent prong.” ( Rios, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at pp. 561, 564.) Section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1) does not require evidence of the defendant’s specific intent to promote, further, or assist a gang-related crime. | 2 | 5 |
People v. Sengpadychithgreen2 sentences2015(In re Jose P. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 458, 467 ; People v. Sengpadychith (2001) 26 Cal.4th 316, 324 .) 7 186.22, subdivision (b)(1), gang enhancement. [Citation.]" (People v. Vang (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1038, 1048 ; see also Albillar, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 63 ["Expert opinion that particular criminal conduct benefited a gang . . . can be sufficient to raise the inference that the conduct was 'committed for the benefit of . . . a[] criminal street gang' within the meaning of section 186.22(b)(1)"].)4 In any event, additional evidence supported Detective Foote's opinion that the robbery was committ 2014(Sengpadychith, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 325 .) By omitting from its instruction with CALCRIM No. 1401 the specific predicate crimes for the second element of the definition of a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1), the court erred. | 2 | 4 |
People v. Ramongreen2 sentences2018In Frank S ., a minor carrying a concealed fixed blade knife while riding a bicycle said he had been attacked two days earlier and needed the knife for protection against " 'the Southerners,' " and he identified himself as a Norteño affiliate during intake at a juvenile detention facility. ( Frank S ., supra , 141 Cal.App.4th at p. 1195 , 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 839 ) Based on those facts, the expert opined that the minor was an active Norteño, that gang members used knives for protection from and to assault rival gang members, and that the minor's possession of the knife benefited the Norteños because 2018In Frank S ., a minor carrying a concealed fixed blade knife while riding a bicycle said he had been attacked two days earlier and needed the knife for protection against " 'the Southerners,' " and he identified himself as a Norteño affiliate during intake at a juvenile detention facility. ( Frank S ., supra , 141 Cal.App.4th at p. 1195 , 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 839 ) Based on those facts, the expert opined that the minor was an active Norteño, that gang members used knives for protection from and to assault rival gang members, and that the minor's possession of the knife benefited the Norteños because | 2 | 4 |
People v. Nashgreen2 sentences2022(People v. Superior Court (Ferraro) (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 896 , 915; accord, People v. Nash (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1041 , 1064-1065 (Nash); People v. Johns (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 46 , 65-66.) In short, the voters left intact the Legislature’s power to amend the definition of a criminal street gang in section 186.22, subdivision (f). 2022(People v. Superior Court (Ferraro) (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 896 , 915; accord, People v. Nash (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1041 , 1064-1065 (Nash); People v. Johns (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 46 , 65-66.) In short, the voters left intact the Legislature’s power to amend the definition of a criminal street gang in section 186.22, subdivision (f). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2020(See People v. Jones (2009) 47 Cal.4th 566, 576-578 [for purposes of applying section 12022.53, subdivision (c) sentence enhancement a section 246 conviction committed to benefit a street gang is a felony punishable by life imprisonment]; People v. Florez (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 314, 318-319 [holding for purposes of limiting presentence conduct credit, "the felony conviction for discharging a firearm at an inhabited dwelling house in violation of section 246, committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang under section 186.22[, subdivision] (b)(4) qualifies as 'a felony offense listed in s 2020(See People v. Jones (2009) 47 Cal.4th 566, 576-578 [for purposes of applying section 12022.53, subdivision (c) sentence enhancement a section 246 conviction committed to benefit a street gang is a felony punishable by life imprisonment]; People v. Florez (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 314, 318-319 [holding for purposes of limiting presentence conduct credit, "the felony conviction for discharging a firearm at an inhabited dwelling house in violation of section 246, committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang under section 186.22[, subdivision] (b)(4) qualifies as 'a felony offense listed in s | 2 | 3 |
People v. Ewinggreen2 sentences2017(See People v. Ewing (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 359 , 372, 197 Cal.Rptr.3d 813 [ Prunty does not apply where the prosecution does not proffer the predicate crimes of subset gang members to prove the existence of a criminal street gang].) *190 Given the definition of a criminal street gang in section 186.22, subdivision (f), we conclude the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to establish the existence of such a gang. 2017(See People v. Ewing (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 359 , 372, 197 Cal.Rptr.3d 813 [ Prunty does not apply where the prosecution does not proffer the predicate crimes of subset gang members to prove the existence of a criminal street gang].) *190 Given the definition of a criminal street gang in section 186.22, subdivision (f), we conclude the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to establish the existence of such a gang. | 2 | 3 |
| People v. Jose P.red | 2 | 3 |
| People v. Gonzalezgreen | 2 | 3 |
| People v. Clarkgreen | 2 | 2 |
| People v. Eagle CA3green | 2 | 2 |
| People v. Buycksgreen | 2 | 2 |
| People v. Florezgreen | 2 | 2 |
| People v. Valdezgreen | 2 | 2 |
| People v. Martinezgreen | 2 | 2 |
| People v. Galvezgreen | 2 | 2 |
People v. Trangreen2 sentences2026(See Assembly Bill No. 333 (2021−2022 Reg. Sess.); People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169 , 1206.) This argument misses the mark. 2024Defendant admits “[s]everal appellate cases have held that gang evidence may still be introduced without complying with the definition of criminal street gang in Penal Code section 186.22, if the gang evidence is relevant to an issue in the case.” (Citing Tran, supra, 13 Cal.5th 1169 , 1208; Ramirez, supra, 13 Cal.5th at pp. 1095-1096.) This admission is significant in two respects. | 1 | 3 |
People v. Perezgreen2 sentences2020(People v. Vang (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1038, 1048 ; see Albillar, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 63 [“[e]xpert opinion that particular criminal conduct benefited a gang … can be sufficient to raise the inference that the conduct was ‘committed for the benefit of … a[] criminal street gang’ within the meaning of section 186.22[, subdivision] (b)(1)”].) But, such expert testimony must be rooted in fact and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom; “ ‘purely conclusory and factually unsupported opinions’ … [are] insufficient to support a gang enhancement.” (People v. Perez (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 598, 608, 610 (P 2019(People v. Perez (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 598, 607 .) “The gang enhancement cannot be sustained based solely on defendant’s status as a member of the gang and his subsequent commission of crimes. [Citation.]” (People v. Ochoa (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 650, 663 (Ochoa).) “Expert opinion that particular criminal conduct benefited a gang by enhancing its reputation for viciousness can be sufficient to raise the inference that the conduct was ‘committed for the benefit of … a[] criminal street gang’ within the meaning of section 186.22(b)(1). [Citations.]” (Albillar, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 63 .) As a s | 1 | 3 |
People v. Franklingreen2 sentences2017DISCUSSION I Gang Enhancement Defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to sustain the jury's finding that he committed the substantive offenses for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1), which provides: "[A]ny person who is convicted of a felony committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang, with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members, shall, upon conviction of that felony, in addition and consecutive to the punishment prescri 2017DISCUSSION I Gang Enhancement Defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to sustain the jury's finding that he committed the substantive offenses for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1), which provides: "[A]ny person who is convicted of a felony committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang, with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members, shall, upon conviction of that felony, in addition and consecutive to the punishment prescri | 1 | 3 |
| People v. Lambgreen | 1 | 2 |
| People v. Neelygreen | 1 | 2 |
| People v. Livingstongreen | 1 | 2 |
| People v. Ramirez & Villarrealgreen | 1 | 2 |
| People v. Mauryred | 1 | 2 |
| People v. Guerrerogreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Rojasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Villa-Gomezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Hendersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Figueroagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| People v. Ramirez & Villarrealgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Rodriguez
green
2 sentences2015A jury convicted him of attempted robbery and active participation in a criminal street gang under section 186.22, subdivision (a). ( Rodriguez, supra, at p. 1129 .) The issue in Rodriguez was whether the third element of the crime described in section 186.22, subdivision (a), willfully promoting, furthering, or assisting in any felonious criminal conduct by members of the defendant's gang, can be satisfied by felonious criminal conduct committed by the defendant acting alone. ( Rodriguez, supra, at p. 1129 .) The court held that it does not. 2015A jury convicted him of attempted robbery and active participation in a criminal street gang under section 186.22, subdivision (a). ( Rodriguez, supra, at p. 1129 .) The issue in Rodriguez was whether the third element of the crime described in section 186.22, subdivision (a), willfully promoting, furthering, or assisting in any felonious criminal conduct by members of the defendant's gang, can be satisfied by felonious criminal conduct committed by the defendant acting alone. ( Rodriguez, supra, at p. 1129 .) The court held that it does not. | 8 | 2013–2015 |
People v. Frank S.
green
2 sentences2018First, the California Supreme Court emphasized in Vang that " '[e]xpert opinion that particular criminal conduct benefited a gang' is not only permissible but can be sufficient to support [a gang enhancement under] section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)." ( Vang , supra , 52 Cal.4th at p. 1048 , 132 Cal.Rptr.3d 373 , 262 P.3d 581 .) Vang undermines the earlier view expressed in Frank S . that the expert there had offered an improper opinion on whether possession of the weapon was committed for the benefit of a *707 criminal street gang under section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1). ( Frank S ., supra , 2018First, the California Supreme Court emphasized in Vang that " '[e]xpert opinion that particular criminal conduct benefited a gang' is not only permissible but can be sufficient to support [a gang enhancement under] section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)." ( Vang , supra , 52 Cal.4th at p. 1048 , 132 Cal.Rptr.3d 373 , 262 P.3d 581 .) Vang undermines the earlier view expressed in Frank S . that the expert there had offered an improper opinion on whether possession of the weapon was committed for the benefit of a *707 criminal street gang under section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1). ( Frank S ., supra , | 6 | 2013–2018 |
People v. Williams
green
2 sentences2014(See, e.g., People v. Williams (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 587, 621 ; People v. Martinez (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1332-1333 .) Here, the jury found true the allegation that appellant committed the robbery for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C). 2013(See, e.g., People v. Williams (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 587, 621 ; People v. Martinez (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1332-1333 .) Here, the jury found true the allegation that appellant committed the robbery for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C). | 5 | 2013–2023 |
People v. Rodriguez
red
2 sentences2015Section 1170.1, subdivision (f), provides in relevant part: "When two or more enhancements may be imposed for being armed with or using a dangerous or deadly 6 weapon or a firearm in the commission of a single offense, only the greatest of those enhancements shall be imposed for that offense." In People v. Rodriguez (2009) 47 Cal.4th 501 (Rodriguez), the California Supreme Court held that the additional punishment for committing a violent felony to benefit a criminal street gang under section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C), and the additional punishment for personal use of a firearm under secti 2015In short, because the felony of assault with a semiautomatic firearm is inherently serious under section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(31), because defendant was convicted of that crime, and because there is neither a second weapon enhancement nor (as in Rodriguez, supra, 47 Cal.4th 501 ) dual use of one weapon enhancement, the trial court was required to impose the enhancement for committing a serious felony to benefit a criminal street gang under section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(B). | 5 | 2009–2015 |
People v. Quang Minh Tran
green
2 sentences2023At the time of trial, the statute stated, “A criminal street gang is any ongoing association that has as one of its primary activities the commission of certain criminal offenses and engages through its members in a ‘pattern of criminal gang activity.’ [Citations.] A pattern of criminal gang activity is ‘the commission of, attempted commission of, conspiracy to commit, or solicitation of, sustained juvenile petition for, or conviction of two or more’ specified criminal offenses within a certain time frame, ‘on separate occasions, or by two or more persons’ . . . .” (People v. Tran, supra, 51 C 2015(People v. Tran (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1040, 1046 .) Quezada's prior 28 conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm qualified as a predicate offense and was relevant to prove Brole was a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivisions (b) and (f). | 4 | 2015–2023 |
In Re Estrada
green
2 sentences2025(Tran, supra, 13 Cal.5th at pp. 1206-1207; In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740 .) “When jury instructions are deficient for omitting an element of an offense, they implicate the defendant’s federal constitutional rights, and we review for harmless error under the strict standard of Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 .” (People v. Sek, supra, 74 Cal.App.5th at p. 668; accord, Lamb, supra, 16 Cal.5th at p. 448; Tran, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 1207.) “In this assessment, we ‘conduct a thorough examination of the record. 2022Retroactivity of Assembly Bill 333 Gonzalez contends that the new section 186.22(g) enacted by Assembly Bill 333 applies to his case under In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740 (Estrada) as an ameliorative statute that creates the potential for lesser punishment.25 The Estrada rule, which applies to enhancements as well as substantive offenses, “rests on the presumption that, in the absence of a savings clause providing only prospective relief or other clear intention concerning any retroactive effect, ‘a legislative body ordinarily intends for ameliorative changes to the criminal law to extend a | 3 | 2022–2025 |
Chapman v. California
yellow
2 sentences2015Code, § 12022.5, subd. (a)) in connection with count 3, and (as to each count) that he committed the offenses for the benefit of a criminal street gang within the meaning of Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b). 2 On remand, Riley asserts his convictions must be reversed in their entirety because, considering all of the evidence properly admitted at trial, the erroneous admission of three photographs taken from his cell phone cannot be deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 (Chapman). 2014Because there is no reasonable possibility of any finding by a jury other than that those predicate crimes were of the type listed in section 186.22, subdivision (e), for purposes of determining whether the Carlsbad gang was a criminal street gang within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1), the trial 33 court's error in omitting the specific predicate crimes for the second element of the criminal street gang definition was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. ( Chapman, supra, at p. 24 .) V INSTRUCTIONS ON ELEMENTS OF TARGET OFFENSES Rocha contends the trial court erred by not ins | 3 | 2014–2025 |
People v. Prado
green
2 sentences2023Not only would this result in confusion for any jury faced with both a gang-murder special circumstances and gang-related offenses and enhancements, but it could result in defendants being “found not to qualify for the lesser gang sentence enhancements, but nonetheless found to qualify for capital punishment.” (Lee, supra, 81 Cal.App.5th at p. 242 & fn. 36.) As stated in Lee,“[i]t is difficult to discern a rational reason for such an anomalous choice, and we find no basis to conclude the electorate made it.” (Id. at p. 242.) 24 This includes other Fourth District panels (People v. Cruz (2020) 2022(See County of San Diego v. Commission (2018) 6 Cal.5th 196, 214 ; People v. Prado (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 480 , 485.) According to the Attorney General, however, the voters did not intend to permit any future amendment of that provision to be incorporated into the gang-murder special circumstance. | 3 | 2022–2023 |
People v. Johns
green
2 sentences2022(People v. Superior Court (Ferraro) (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 896 , 915; accord, People v. Nash (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1041 , 1064-1065 (Nash); People v. Johns (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 46 , 65-66.) In short, the voters left intact the Legislature’s power to amend the definition of a criminal street gang in section 186.22, subdivision (f). 2022(People v. Superior Court (Ferraro) (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 896 , 915; accord, People v. Nash (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1041 , 1064-1065 (Nash); People v. Johns (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 46 , 65-66.) In short, the voters left intact the Legislature’s power to amend the definition of a criminal street gang in section 186.22, subdivision (f). | 3 | 2022–2023 |
| People v. Rowland green | 3 | 2017–2017 |
| People v. Elizalde green | 3 | 2017–2017 |
Jackson v. Virginia
red
2 sentences2017Legal Principles "In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the question ... is 'whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.' " ( People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238 , 269, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 , 841 P.2d 897 , quoting Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307 , 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 .) The California Constitution requires the same standard. ( Ibi 2017Legal Principles "In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the question ... is 'whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.' " ( People v. Rowland (1992) 4 Cal.4th 238 , 269, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 377 , 841 P.2d 897 , quoting Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307 , 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 .) The California Constitution requires the same standard. ( Ibi | 3 | 2017–2017 |
| People v. Martinez green | 3 | 2013–2016 |
| Cnty. of San Diego v. Comm'n on State Mandates green | 2 | 2022–2022 |
| People v. Rojas green | 2 | 2022–2022 |
| People v. Martinez green | 2 | 2014–2022 |
| People v. Leon green | 2 | 2020–2021 |
| People v. Dueñas green | 2 | 2019–2020 |
| People v. Beasley green | 2 | 2020–2020 |
| People v. Daniel C. green | 2 | 2016–2017 |
| People v. Hernandez green | 2 | 2014–2016 |
| People v. Romero green | 2 | 2014–2015 |
| People v. Lamas green | 2 | 2014–2014 |
| People v. Ferraez green | 2 | 2013–2014 |
| Lexin v. Superior Court green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| People v. Burgos green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| People v. Jackson yellow | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| People v. Farias green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| People v. Fletcher green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| People v. Ramirez green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| People v. Fialho green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| People v. Garcia green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| People v. Solis green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| People v. Bucio green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| People v. Lopez green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| People v. Lippert green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| People v. Lombardo green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| People v. Jorge G. green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.