Skip to content
Name: People v. Arroyo
Case #: G048659
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 04/28/2014
Subsequent History: Review granted 7/23/14: S219178

Prosecution of 14-year-old defendant in adult court may proceed via grand jury indictment. The Orange County Grand Jury issued an indictment that charged Arroyo and others with conspiracy to commit murder for the benefit of a gang and other offenses. (Pen. Code, §§ 187/182/186.22, subds. (a) & (b).) The indictment included a finding Arroyo was 14 years of age or older and the conspiracy offense came within Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (d)(2). Arroyo demurred to the indictment, claiming section 707, subdivision (d) requires prosecution to proceed via preliminary hearing and information. The demurrer was sustained and the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Mejia
Case #: B229382
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 11/30/2012

There was sufficient evidence that appellants were liable for the killing of their accomplice by a rival gang member under the theory of provocative act murder. At approximately 3:00 a.m., appellants, members of the 18th Street criminal street gang, went to the apartment of Pulido, a member of the rival criminal street gang, the Big Top Locos, intending to kill Pulido. One of the 18th Street gang members was Lorenzo. The gang members knocked on the door and asked for Pulido, who became suspicious and frightened. He retrieved a shotgun from under the bed in his bedroom and loaded it…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Louie
Case #: C062821
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 02/07/2012

A gang enhancement under Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1) may not be imposed when subdivision (b)(4) or (b)(5) applies instead. A jury convicted appellant of dissuading a witness (Pen. Code, § 136.1) and found true a street terrorism enhancement. The trial court imposed both a life sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(4)(C) and a stayed five-year enhancement pursuant to subdivision (b)(1)(B). Section 186.22, subdivision (b) establishes alternative methods of punishment. A subdivision (b)(1) enhancement may not be applied when subdivision (b)(4) or (b)(5) applies instead. Because dissuading a witness is specifically listed in subdivision (b)(4), the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Shabazz
Case #: S131048
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 03/27/2006

A prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment for first degree murder was also subject to a sentence enhancement of 25 years to life, and the special circumstance set forth in Penal Code section 190.2, subdivision (a)(22), applies where a defendant discharges a firearm with the intent to kill one party but misses and kills a bystander. Subdivision (a)(22) authorizes imposition of a punishment of death or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole upon an active participant of a criminal street gang who "intentionally killed the victim" to further the activities of the gang. The court held that…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Ringo
Case #: B177196
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 12/07/2005

A defendant's pre-Proposition 21 conviction for making a criminal threat qualifies as a serious felony under Penal Code section 667. Before the adoption of Proposition 21, a criminal threat as defined by Penal Code section 422 was not a serious felony. Proposition 21 added section 422 to the list of serious felonies. The plain language of section 667, subdivision (a), states that the date for determining if a prior conviction is a serious felony is the date of the new offense. At the time that the defendant committed his current offenses, section 422 was a serious…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Florez
Case #: A105204
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 08/30/2005

A defendant convicted of shooting at an inhabited dwelling under Penal Code section 246, committed for the benefit of a street gang within the meaning of Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(4), is subject to the fifteen-percent custody credits limitation under Penal Code section 2933.1. Defendant argued that because the street gang enhancement resulted in the imposition of a life term, he was entitled to full custody credits under case law holding that prisoners sentenced to life terms under the Three Strikes law remained entitled to full custody credit. The Court of Appeal disagreed, noting that in those…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Banuelos
Case #: B172385
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 06/22/2005
Subsequent History: rehng. den. 7/18/05

Appellant was convicted of making a criminal threat and resisting a peace officer, and was sentenced to state prison after the trial court found in a bifurcated proceeding that he had been convicted of a prior serious felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law, and which also triggered the five-year enhancement provision of Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a). On appeal, he argued that the record was insufficient to demonstrate that the prior conviction for a violation of section 245 (a)(1)qualified as a serious felony. The appellate court agreed and reversed the true finding on the enhancements.…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Thomas
Case #: S118052
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 04/18/2005
Subsequent History: Rhrg. den. 6/8/05

Appellant was 15 years old when he committed an armed robbery. He was tried as an adult pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (d)(2). Appellant entered into a negotiated plea agreement, under the terms of which he could not be sentenced to more than 13 years in prison. Appellant asked for a disposition under juvenile court law, and the prosecutor objected. Under Penal Code section 1170.19, the objection barred the trial court from considering a juvenile disposition. Appellant contended that the requirement for prosecutorial consent violated the separation of powers provision of…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Jorge G.
Case #: F043272
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 04/13/2004
Subsequent History: Rev. den. 6/23/04

The minor was ordered to register as a gang member, pursuant to Penal Code section 186.30, subdivision (b)(3), [added by the Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention (STEP) Act, enacted by Proposition 21], as a condition of probation, after he admitted a juvenile petition charging him with disturbing the peace and resisting arrest. At a contested disposition hearing, he challenged the gang registration requirement. After testimony, the juvenile court found that the charges were gang-related, and therefore registration was required. On appeal, the minor contended that the statute was unconstitutionally vague. The appellate court disagreed but applied…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Superior Court (Andrades)
Case #: H025569
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 11/25/2003
Subsequent History: None

A prior juvenile adjudication of robbery does constitute a strike in cases where the current offense was committed after the passage of Proposition 21. A prior juvenile adjudication may constitutionally be used as a strike even thought there is no right to a jury trial in juvenile…

View Full Summary