Error and/or relief
The evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to support the jury’s true findings on gang enhancements attached to counts 1 and 2, and a gang-murder special circumstance attached to count 1.
First Holding:
When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support an enhancement, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Such evidence must be reasonable, credible and of solid value.
Authority:
People v. Renteria (2022) 13 Cal.5th 951, 970
Second Holding:
To establish a gang enhancement, the prosecution was required to prove the defendant committed the offenses for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang and did so with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in criminal conduct by gang members. The statute requires proof of a common benefit to members of a gang where the common benefit is more than reputational. Examples of qualifying nonreputational benefits include financial gain or motivation, retaliation, targeting rivals, or witness intimidation.
Authority:
PEN 186.22
Third Holding:
The gang-murder special circumstance required the prosecution to prove that the defendant intentionally killed the victim while the defendant was an active participant in a criminal street gang and the murder was carried out to further the activities of the criminal street gang. Thus, the special-circumstance allegation depended upon the same gang-related findings underlying the section 186.22 enhancements, including the “more than reputational” requirement in section 186.22(g).
Authority:
PEN 190.2
PEN 186.22
People v. Campbell (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 350, 378
Fourth Holding:
Substantial evidence does not support the jury’s true findings on the gang enhancements attached to counts 1 and 2 or the gang-murder special circumstance attached to count 1. In short, the requirements of section 186.22(g) were not met. Consequently, these findings must be stricken. Based on the principle of double jeopardy, retrial is barred.
Authority:
PEN 186.22(g)
Lockhart v. Nelson (1988) 488 U.S. 33, 39
People v. Garcia (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 519, 526 [a gang enhancement reversed for insufficient evidence may not be retried]
Fifth Holding:
Because these findings formed part of the overall sentencing package, remand for full resentencing is required.
Authority:
People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 [when part of a sentence is stricken, a full resentencing is appropriate so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances]