People v. Lopez, 208 Cal. App. 4th 1049

Lopez was convicted of the murder of Michael Valles and multiple enhancements, resulting in a determinate term of 8 years 4 months and an indeterminate term of 50 years to life.
The jury also found Lopez guilty of count 5, attempted to dissuade a witness from testifying, and count 4, active participation in a criminal street gang, with enhancements on several counts.
The trial court imposed a 14-to-life sentence for count 5 under 186.22(b)(4)(C), based on an alleged threat element, and a separate issue involved a potential Mesa stay problem for count 4.
Evidence showed conflicts at the Tattoo Shop involving Bargas, Valles, Lopez, and Wernicke, including threats like “no good” and “green light,” followed by shootout.
During appeal, the Supreme Court’s Mesa decision prompted reconsideration of staying or vacating portions of the sentence where conduct overlapped with previously punished crimes.
The court ultimately affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentences on counts 4 and 5 and remanded for resentencing in light of Mesa and related rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 186.22(b)(4)(C) can apply to count 5 without a finding of express/implied threat	Lopez: no express/implied threat found; 136.1(c)(1) not charged.	People: the phrase 'threats to victims and witnesses' encompasses 136.1 and supports seven-to-life for any 136.1 conviction.	Error: seven-to-life vacated; remand for resentencing on count 5.
Whether Mesa requires staying or vacating a sentence for count 4 under 186.22(a) when same conduct is punished	Lopez contends Mesa stay rules apply to overlapping conduct.	People rely on Mesa to stay portions where conduct overlaps with earlier punished offenses.	Count 4 sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing consistent with Mesa.
Whether the convictions and related sentences merit affirmance given trial court instructions and jury findings	Lopez argues instruction/findings were improper or incomplete concerning threat element.	People maintain correct application of 136.1 and gang enhancements with appropriate jury findings.	Convictions affirmed; counts 4 and 5 vacated; remanded for resentencing.

People v. Mesa, 54 Cal.4th 191 (Cal. 2012) (stay of sentence under 654 when acts are same conduct as punished)
Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (U.S. 2007) (statutory facts used to enhance sentence require jury finding)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004) (clarifies Apprendi about sentence based on facts found beyond reasonable doubt)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (all relevant facts increasing sentence beyond statutory maximum must be found by jury)