People v. Ochoa CA2/5, B262795

Defendant Juan Ochoa and two associates committed armed robberies at Cancun Ole restaurant and the Lampliter bar on the same night; surveillance video showed a light-colored SUV staging near both locations.
Defendant was positively identified at the scene and later arrested in a silver Dodge Durango; police recovered a loaded .25 handgun, a replica, the Cancun Ole bartender’s phone, and a CD labeled with "Stoners 13."
Experts agreed Stoners 13 is a criminal street gang and that Ochoa was an active member; the People’s expert additionally testified Jose Galvan (who was in the SUV) was an active Stoners 13 member.
Defense expert conceded some gang symbols overlap with team logos and argued the robberies were personal/financially motivated (to buy Christmas gifts) and lacked overt gang indicia (no shouted slogans, signs, or gang graffiti).
A jury convicted Ochoa of multiple robberies, attempted robbery, assault with a firearm, and burglary, and found true gang enhancements under Penal Code §186.22(b)(1); sentence totaled 66 years 4 months, including 20 years from gang enhancements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supports §186.22(b)(1) enhancements (act "for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with" a gang)	Evidence showed Ochoa and at least one other Stoners 13 member (Jose) acted together in planned robberies; expertise and physical items connected participants to the gang.	Insufficient evidence: crimes lacked overt gang indicia; robberies were personal (desperation), and Ochoa was the only active gang participant inside establishments.	Affirmed: substantial evidence supported the "in association with" prong—jury could find Ochoa and Jose came together as gang members to commit the robberies.
Whether there was specific intent to "promote, further, or assist" criminal conduct by gang members	Acting with known fellow gang members permits inference of specific intent to assist/promote gang criminal conduct.	Absent—defendant acted for personal benefit (to buy gifts); no evidence of sharing proceeds with gang.	Held that committing the felony with known gang members supports the requisite specific intent.

People v. Albillar, 51 Cal.4th 47 (2010) (standard for proving gang enhancements and inference of specific intent when defendant acts with known gang members)
People v. Rodriguez, 55 Cal.4th 1125 (2012) (elements of §186.22(b)(1) explained)
People v. Kraft, 23 Cal.4th 978 (2000) (review standard for circumstantial evidence)
People v. Perez, 2 Cal.4th 1117 (1992) (circumstantial-evidence review principles)
People v. Thomas, 2 Cal.4th 489 (1992) (deference to jury when evidence can support reasonable inferences)
People v. Vang, 52 Cal.4th 1038 (2011) (permitting gang-expert testimony on gang culture/habits)
In re Frank S., 141 Cal.App.4th 1192 (2006) (gang-expert testimony allowed to explain gang-related evidence)
People v. Loeun, 17 Cal.4th 1 (1997) (gang membership alone insufficient for enhancement)