People v. Garcia
9 Cal. App. 5th 364
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Sept. 20, 2013, after repeated fights outside an apartment building, defendant Enoc Garcia (a documented Black P‑Stones member) arrived after calls/texts from fellow BPS member Shawn Jones and fired multiple shots, wounding two bystanders and injuring another; defendant was convicted by jury of two counts of assault with a firearm.
- Phone and text records, tattoos, photos, and a post‑arrest jail call showed defendant and Jones identified as “P‑Stone”/“Blood,” exchanged calls/texts just before the shooting, and communicated about the incident after arrest.
- Prosecution’s gang expert (LAPD Officer Guerrero) testified that the Black P‑Stones gang includes two subsets—the Bittys (City Stones) and the Jungles—who share membership, territory, symbols, and act in concert; a law‑enforcement database listed ~1,100 BPS members (≈800 Jungles, ≈300 Bittys).
- Defense expert (Prof. Alonso) testified the Bittys and Jungles are separate gangs under a shared umbrella and opined the shooting was not necessarily gang‑motivated.
- Jury found true gang (§ 186.22(b)(1)(C)) and firearm (§ 12022.5(a)) enhancements; trial court imposed an aggregate 23 years 8 months. On appeal, defendant challenged sufficiency of evidence for the gang enhancement (focusing on whether the Bittys and Jungles are one gang) and the legality of sentencing enhancements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Garcia) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was sufficient evidence that the Black P‑Stones (including Bittys and Jungles) constituted one "criminal street gang" under § 186.22(f) | Officer Guerrero’s testimony, tattoos, photos, database, texts, historical account, and evidence of subsets working together show an associational/organizational connection—sufficient under Prunty | The Bittys and Jungles are separate gangs; predicate offenses come from different subsets, so no single gang committed two predicate acts required for § 186.22(f) | Affirmed: substantial evidence supported that Bittys and Jungles are subsets of one BPS gang; associational connection proven (distinguishing Prunty’s insufficiency) |
| Whether the assaults were committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang (§ 186.22(b)(1)) | Facts (calls/texts asking for help, gang ID shouted during fights, location in BPS turf, tattoos/photos, expert opinion on gang respect/backup) support that the crimes were gang‑related/committed in association with gang | Acts were personal/individual disputes, not gang conduct | Affirmed: substantial evidence supported gang‑relatedness and that defendants acted in association with the gang (Albillar standard) |
| Whether imposing both the § 12022.5 firearm enhancement and the § 186.22(b)(1)(C) gang enhancement for the same violent felony was proper | Court relied on both enhancements | Defendant argued both enhancements cannot be stacked for the same violent felony | Reversed sentencing on that point: trial court erred by imposing both on count three; must follow § 1170.1(f) and Rodriguez (remand for resentencing) |
| Whether defendant is entitled to additional presentence custody credit | People conceded entitlement | Defendant sought extra credit | Remand to award 11 additional days (total credit adjusted to 780 days) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Prunty, 62 Cal.4th 59 (2015) (when prosecution relies on subsets to prove a single gang, it must show associational/organizational connection among subsets)
- People v. Albillar, 51 Cal.4th 47 (2010) (expert opinion and evidence may establish that a crime was committed for gang benefit, direction, or in association with a gang)
- People v. Rodriguez, 47 Cal.4th 501 (2009) (when a violent felony enhancement is predicated on firearm use, the gang enhancement that piggybacks on that firearm cannot be stacked; only the greater enhancement applies)
- People v. Vang, 52 Cal.4th 1038 (2011) (expert opinion that criminal conduct benefitted a gang is admissible and can support a § 186.22(b) enhancement)