The Court of Appeal agreed with appellant that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction on count 2 for attempted voluntary manslaughter and reversed the conviction. Second, the court concluded that the trial court’s use of the pre-Assembly Bill 333 pattern jury instruction was prejudicial. This required reversal of the gang enhancements, the substantive gang offense (count 7), and the related section 12022.53, subdivisions (d) and (e)(1) gang-related firearm use enhancements.