People v. Prunty
62 Cal. 4th 59
| Cal. | 2015

Background

  • On Nov. 26, 2010, Zackery Prunty (a self‑identified Norteño, Detroit Boulevard set) shot at Gustavo Manzo in a Sacramento shopping center; Manzo and a 10‑year‑old were wounded. Prunty acted with companion Emilio Chacon (Varrio Franklin Boulevard Norteños).
  • Prunty was convicted of attempted voluntary manslaughter and assault with a firearm; jury also found true the Penal Code § 186.22(b) gang‑enhancement (crime committed for benefit of a criminal street gang). Trial sentencing produced a 32‑year aggregate term.
  • Prosecution’s gang expert, Detective John Sample, testified about the Norteños generally (symbols, colors, primary criminal activities) and described predicate offenses committed by several Sacramento Norteño subsets (Varrio Gardenland, Del Paso Heights, Varrio Centro) but gave no testimony tying those subsets organizationally to one another or to the broader Sacramento Norteños.
  • On appeal Prunty argued the prosecution relied on disparate subset conduct without proving an associational or organizational connection required by § 186.22(f); the Court of Appeal upheld the enhancement. The Supreme Court granted review.
  • The Supreme Court held the STEP Act requires evidence showing an associational/organizational connection uniting alleged subsets when the prosecution relies on subset conduct to prove a single criminal street gang; because the prosecution failed to connect the predicate‑offense subsets to the larger Norteño group here, the enhancement could not stand and the Court of Appeal’s judgment was reversed.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether § 186.22(f) permits treating multiple neighborhood subsets as one "criminal street gang" based solely on shared name/symbols and common enemy Court of Appeal/AG: shared name, symbols, colors, and a common enemy suffice to establish a single gang Prunty: must show collaboration or collective organizational structure linking subsets; mere shared ideology or labels is insufficient Held: prosecution must show some associational or organizational connection among subsets (formal or informal); shared symbols/ideology alone are inadequate
What kinds of evidence can prove the required connection among subsets AG: (implicit) broad evidence of gang culture and subset crimes suffices Prunty: need proof of collaboration, hierarchical control, shared operations, or self‑identification linking subsets Held: prosecutors have flexibility — examples include hierarchy/shot‑callers, shared governance/bylaws, coordinated criminal activity, shared turf/operations, fluid/shared membership, mutual backing, or subset self‑identification tied to conduct
Whether Detective Sample’s testimony was sufficient to prove the requisite connection here Prosecution: Sample’s expert testimony describing Norteños and predicate subset crimes established the gang and predicate acts Prunty: Sample failed to connect the specific predicate‑offense subsets to the broader Norteño organization Held: Insufficient — Sample’s testimony described subsets and crimes but did not furnish evidence linking those subsets to one another or to the Sacramento Norteños the defendant allegedly sought to benefit
Remedy when enhancement proof is insufficient N/A (prosecution sought to uphold enhancement) N/A Held: Reverse Court of Appeal as to the gang enhancement and remand for proceedings consistent with opinion (enhancement cannot stand on current record)

Key Cases Cited

  • People v. Williams, 167 Cal.App.4th 983 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (court required some collaborative activity or collective organizational structure before treating multiple subsets as a single gang)
  • People v. Albillar, 51 Cal.4th 47 (Cal. 2010) (STEP Act targets crimes by gang members and the public dangers they pose)
  • People v. Loeun, 17 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1997) (defining pattern of criminal gang activity under STEP Act)
  • People v. Gardeley, 14 Cal.4th 605 (Cal. 1996) (statutory interpretation and legislative purpose in gang cases)
  • People v. Tran, 51 Cal.4th 1040 (Cal. 2011) (discussing gang hierarchy and shot‑caller concept)
  • People v. Brookfield, 47 Cal.4th 583 (Cal. 2009) (upholding gang enhancement for geographically dispersed groups where evidence supported it)
  • People v. Valdez, 55 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2012) (gang membership evidence is neither necessary nor sufficient for enhancement)
  • People v. Lawley, 27 Cal.4th 102 (Cal. 2002) (expert opinion is weighed by trier of fact; basis for opinion matters for admissibility)
  • In re Jose P., 106 Cal.App.4th 458 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (illustrative gang‑evidence case involving subset interactions)
  • People v. Ortega, 145 Cal.App.4th 1344 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (case discussing evidence of coordination among subsets)
Read the full case