People v. Albillar, 51 Cal. 4th 47

Defendants Albert Andrew Albillar, Alex Albillar, and John Madrigal were convicted by jury of forcible rape in concert, forcible sexual penetration in concert, and active participation in a criminal street gang, with gang-enhancement findings under §186.22(b).
The People appealed the sufficiency of evidence for the substantive gang offense §186.22(a) and for the §186.22(b)(1) enhancements, raising three issues.
Section 186.22(a) punishes active gang participation with knowledge of a pattern of gang activity and willful promotion of felonious conduct by gang members; the question was whether felonious conduct must be gang-related.
Section 186.22(b)(1) enhances penalties for a felony committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a gang, with specific intent to promote, further, or assist gang members' criminal conduct; the questions were whether the charged offenses were for the gang’s benefit/association and whether the defendant acted with the specific intent to promote other gang conduct.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal, holding that §186.22(a) does not require the felonious conduct to be gang-related, and that substantial evidence supported both the first and second prongs of §186.22(b)(1).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does §186.22(a) require gang-related felonious conduct?	Albillar argues the felonious conduct must be gang-related.	Albillar contends the plain text imposes no gang-related conduct requirement.	No gang-related requirement; statute targets felonious conduct promoted by gang members.
Sufficiency of the first prong of §186.22(b)(1) (benefit/association with the gang) evidence	Evidence showed the crimes benefited the gang.	Evidence failed to show benefit/association with the gang.	Sufficient evidence the offenses were committed for the benefit of and in association with the gang.
Sufficiency of the second prong of §186.22(b)(1) (specific intent to promote further or assist) evidence	Defendants acted with the specific intent to promote or assist gang members’ criminal conduct.	No evidence of specific intent to promote other gang conduct beyond the charged offenses.	Sufficient evidence of specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members.
Whether §186.22(b)(1) requires the charged offense to be itself gang-related or merely connected by intent	Enhancement could apply if offenses were connected to gang activity via intent.	Requires a separate gang-related offense for enhancement.	Statute does not require the charged felony to be gang-related; the enhancement applies with the requisite intent to promote gang activity.

People v. Castenada, 23 Cal.4th 743 (2000) (defines active participation and elements of §186.22(a))
People v. Gardeley, 14 Cal.4th 605 (1996) (addressed gang-related activity and enhancements)
Garcia v. Carey, 395 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2005) (discussed scope of §186.22(b)(1) specific intent requirement)
Briceno v. Scribner, 555 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2009) (reiterated interpretation of §186.22(b)(1) and tensions with Garcia)
People v. Vazquez, 178 Cal.App.4th 347 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2009) (discussed state-law interpretation of §186.22(b)(1))
Scales v. United States, 367 U.S. 203 (1961) (due process concern for active membership statutes)