Error and/or relief
The trial court did not determine whether the defendant’s prior juvenile adjudication in 2013 qualifies as a strike under the current version of section 186.22(b). Further, the prior juvenile adjudication cannot serve as the basis for a prior serious felony enhancement. We remand the matter to permit retrial of the gang enhancement under the current section 186.22 and for a full resentencing following retrial or the People’s election not to pursue retrial.
First Holding:
In 2021, the Legislature amended section 186.22 with the passage of AB 333. Among other things, AB 333 changed the elements of gang offenses and enhancements by narrowing the definitions of criminal street gang, pattern of criminal activity, and what it means for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang.
Authority:
People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206,
People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 583
Second Holding:
Even if a defendant has suffered a conviction under the prior version of section 186.22, courts must look to current law, as amended in AB 333, to determine whether the conviction qualifies as a prior serious felony conviction under section 1192.7(c)(28) for purposes of the Three Strikes law and prior serious felony enhancements. The defendant’s prior conviction in this case could qualify as a strike offense only with the gang enhancement found true prior to AB 333. We must vacate the true finding on the strike prior and remand to permit the People to retry the gang enhancement under current law to determine whether the defendant’s prior conviction qualifies as a strike prior.
Authority:
People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 583, 587, 603-604, 607
Third Holding:
The defendant’s juvenile adjudications cannot be considered a prior serious felony conviction for purposes of the mandatory five-year enhancement in section 667(a).
Authority:
People v. Smith (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1080, fn. 10
People v. West (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 100, 110
Fourth Holding:
When part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for resentencing ‘a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances.
Authority:
People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893