People v. Franklin, 248 Cal. App. 4th 938

Background

Defendant Robert Franklin convicted by jury of first-degree residential burglary, criminal threats, false imprisonment (lesser included offense), and attempted extortion; gang enhancements alleged for all but found true only for criminal threats and false imprisonment. Sentenced to 18 years 4 months after bench finding of a prior strike; appellate court later ordered resentencing to strike gang enhancement.
Victim Crystal Delgado had an on‑again/off‑again relationship with Franklin; he sent threatening texts/voicemails, allegedly burglarized her room, assaulted her with a metal pipe, then detained her and demanded $500 for the return of her property.
Police recovered video and photos on Franklin’s phone and found gang indicia in his garage (tattoos, writings). Detective Lopez testified as a gang expert about Franklin’s Jim Town membership, gang activities, and possible Mexican Mafia ties; he opined the offenses benefited the gang.
The jury found the gang allegations true as to threats and false imprisonment; trial court denied defense motion to bifurcate gang evidence from guilt phase and admitted expert testimony regarding Mexican Mafia and inter‑gang associations.
On appeal, Franklin argued (1) gang enhancements lacked substantial evidence, (2) trial court abused discretion by denying bifurcation, (3) references to his criminal history prejudiced the trial and counsel was ineffective, and (4) inflammatory Mexican Mafia testimony was improperly admitted and counsel failed to object.
The Court of Appeal affirmed convictions on substantive counts, reversed the gang enhancement findings for insufficient evidence, rejected the bifurcation/ineffective‑assistance claims, and held the prior‑record references were cured by a curative instruction; remanded for resentencing to strike the gang enhancement.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for §186.22(b)(1) gang enhancements	Expert testimony and evidence of defendant’s gang membership, tattoos, gang territory, violent conduct, and association with others supported that offenses were committed for benefit/association with Jim Town and with intent to further gang crime	Expert’s opinion was speculative, not grounded in evidence tying these offenses to Jim Town or showing association/benefit; no proof of defendant’s rank or link to Mexican Mafia; other participants were from different gangs	Reversed gang enhancement findings for lack of substantial evidence as to both prongs (benefit/association and specific intent)
Trial court denial of motion to bifurcate gang allegations	Gang evidence was relevant to motive and intent; bifurcation not required	Bifurcation should have been granted because gang proof was weak and highly prejudicial	Denial affirmed: gang evidence was relevant to motive and intent and limiting instructions cured prejudice; no abuse of discretion
Prejudicial references to defendant’s criminal history and ineffective assistance for counsel’s inaction	References to probation/search, “other incidents,” and a redacted text implied prior offenses and irreparably prejudiced jury; counsel ineffective for failing to move for mistrial	References were vague/fleeting, curable by admonition; counsel’s actions not ineffective under Strickland	Affirmed: statements were ambiguous; trial court’s admonition cured any prejudice; no reversible error or proven ineffective assistance
Admission of expert testimony about Mexican Mafia and failure to object	Testimony about Mexican Mafia was inflammatory and unsupported by evidence of defendant’s affiliation; counsel ineffective for not objecting	Even if inflammatory, evidence of guilt on substantive counts was overwhelming; any error harmless	Court agreed Mexican Mafia testimony lacked evidentiary support but deemed error harmless as it did not affect guilt; ineffective assistance claim not reached because no prejudice shown

Key Cases Cited

People v. Albillar, 51 Cal.4th 47 (expert gang opinion may support enhancement but must be rooted in record facts)
People v. Prunty, 62 Cal.4th 59 (the proved gang and the gang the defendant sought to benefit must be the same)
People v. Gardeley, 14 Cal.4th 605 (expert may answer hypothetical grounded in evidence; opinion no better than its factual basis)
People v. Hernandez, 33 Cal.4th 1040 (expert testimony admissible to prove gang enhancement)
People v. Vang, 52 Cal.4th 1038 (expert opinion that conduct benefited a gang can support enhancement)
People v. Collins, 49 Cal.4th 175 (fleeting references to prison or criminal history are often curable by admonition)
People v. Valdez, 32 Cal.4th 73 (brief ambiguous references to custody/jail are curable by admonition)