There was sufficient evidence of gang involvement to support both the substantive offense of Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (a) and the gang enhancement under section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1) where there was sufficient evidence that the Nortenos were a criminal street gang and that appellant was an active participant in the gang. The minor admitted to police that he was involved with the Nortenos, and that if his fellow gang members asked him to do something he “would not be chicken.” He was observed wearing red on at least two occasions. A witness had written in her diary about appellant with references to the gang, and her family received a note from the Nortenos attempting to dissuade their testimony in the case. The minor also had prior arrests for gang related crimes. It was not a violation of Penal Code section 654 to sentence the minor for both the substantive offense and the enhancement. The violation of section 186.22(a) was for participation in the gang itself, and the minor had been involved in previous crimes as a participant in the gang. The enhancement was attached to the substantive offense of robbery, which had a different intent and objective. While appellant may have pursued the two objectives simultaneously, the objectives were independent of each other and therefore section 654 was not a bar to punishment for both.