Error and/or relief
We find that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for discharging a firearm for the benefit of a criminal street gang.
However, the defendant cannot be convicted of both discharging a firearm at a motor vehicle and grossly negligent discharge of a firearm at a motor vehicle, and the abstract of judgment must be corrected to list the enhancements found true.
First Holding:
In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, we examine the entire record and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in favor of the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial credible evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The focus of the substantial evidence test is on the whole record of evidence presented to the trier of fact, rather than on isolated bits of evidence. Resolving conflicts and inconsistencies in the testimony is the jury’s exclusive province.
We do not redetermine the weight of the evidence or the credibility of witnesses. Moreover, unless the testimony is physically impossible or inherently improbable, testimony of a single witness is sufficient to support a conviction.
Authority:
People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 57
People v. Cuevas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 252, 261
People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181
People v. Albillar (2010) 51 Cal.4th 47, 60
Second Holding:
We must accept logical inferences that the trier of fact might have drawn from the evidence even if we would have concluded otherwise. If the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact’s findings, reversal of the judgment is not warranted simply because the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding.
The reviewing court need not address assertions of conflicts in the evidence or alternative theories regarding the inferences that should have been drawn from the evidence. A reversal for insufficient evidence is unwarranted unless it appears that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict. This is true for both direct and circumstantial evidence.
In this case, a reasonable jury could have found that the actions of the defendant were gang related and for the benefit of a gang.
Authority:
People v. Streeter (2012) 54 Cal.4th 205, 241, overruled on other grounds as stated in People v. Harris (2013) 57 Cal.4th 804, 834
People v. Albillar (2010) 51 Cal.4th 47, 60
People v. Letner and Tobin (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99, 162
People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357
People v. Manibusan (2013) 58 Cal.4th 40, 87
People v. Thompson (2010) 49 Cal.4th 79, 113
Third Holding:
The crime of grossly negligent discharge of a firearm which could result in injury or death (sec. 246.3(a)) is a lesser included offense of discharging a firearm at a motor vehicle (sec. 246).
Although section 954 provides that a single act or course of conduct can lead to convictions of any number of the offenses charged, the courts have created an exception to this rule where multiple convictions are based on necessarily included offenses.
In Ramirez, our Supreme Court reviewed the elements of both offenses and concluded that the only difference between the two crimes, and the basis for the more serious treatment of a section 246 offense, is that the greater offense requires that an inhabited dwelling or other specified object be within the defendant’s firing range.
All the elements of section 246.3(a) are necessarily included in the more stringent requirements of section 246. Therefore, we shall reverse defendant’s conviction on the count alleging grossly negligent discharge of a firearm.
Authority:
PEN 954
People v. Ramirez (2009) 45 Cal.4th 980, 984–985
Fourth Holding:
The abstract of judgment fails to accurately reflect the sentence orally pronounced by the trial court. Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts (including this one) that have properly assumed jurisdiction of cases have ordered correction of abstracts of judgment that did not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts.
Authority:
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185