Appellant was convicted of street terrorism in violation of Penal Code section 186.22. On appeal, he contended that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on the elements of street terrorism, because the crime requires that the defendant commit “a separate felony” in addition to an underlying gang-related felony. The appellate court rejected the argument as a misinterpretation of People v. Castaneda (2000) 23 Cal.4th 743, and contrary to the Legislature’s intent. Requiring a separate felony would defeat the Legislature’s purpose of making gang participation itself a substantive crime.