Error and/or relief
In light of AB 333, the trial court’s true findings on the prior serious felony enhancement and the strike prior allegations must be reversed. It is undisputed that there was insufficient evidence that defendant’s prior gang-related conviction (sec. 186.22(a)) satisfied the more stringent evidentiary requirements imposed by the change in law. Therefore, the court erred in considering that conviction to double defendant’s sentence. Accordingly, we will vacate the sentence and remand the matter for further proceedings. The defendant’s sentence is vacated and the matter is remanded for further proceedings, including a full resentencing. On remand, the People may elect to retry, under current law, the allegation that defendant’s prior gang-related conviction qualifies as a serious felony and strike prior for purposes of the three strikes law and a prior serious felony enhancement.
First Holding:
Assembly Bill No. 333 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) narrowed liability for gang-related offenses by requiring more stringent evidentiary requirements for proving them.
Authority:
People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206
People v. Rojas (2023) 15 Cal.5th 561, 576
Second Holding:
AB 333 applies to the determination of whether the conviction qualifies as a prior serious felony conviction under section 1192.7c)(28) for purposes of the Three Strikes law and prior serious felony enhancements. It applies to the analogous determination under section 667(a) for prior serious felony enhancements. Thus, AB 333’s amendments to section 186.22 apply to the current determination of whether the prosecution has proven the prior serious felony enhancement allegations in this case. In other words, whether a prior conviction was for an offense that constitutes a felony violation of Section 186.22 is determined by applying the current version of section 186.22.
Authority:
People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 583, 605, 607
Third Holding:
Where, as here, AB 333 applies retroactively to the determination of whether a prior gang-related conviction qualifies as a serious felony for purposes of the three strikes law and a prior serious felony enhancement we review for harmless error pursuant to Chapman. Vacating a true finding is required unless it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the finding would have been the same under current law. If there is any reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to the finding, vacatur is required.
Authority:
Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18
People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1207
People v. Lewis (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 874, 887
Fourth Holding:
At the time the defendant entered his guilty plea, the People were not required to prove, and defendant did not admit, the current evidentiary requirements of that provision, as amended by AB 333. Under these circumstances, the appropriate remedy is to vacate the true findings on the allegations that defendant’s prior gang-related conviction qualifies as a prior serious felony for purposes of the three strikes law and the prior serious felony enhancement and remand the matter to the trial court to allow the People the opportunity to retry those allegations under current law, considering the elements of section 186.22 as amended by AB 333.
Authority:
People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 607-608