People v. Puerto, 248 Cal. App. 4th 325

Background

On Sept. 13–14, 2014, Alfonso Puerto confronted Brad Varela in Rockwood gang territory; Varela was punched Sept. 13 and again Sept. 14 after Puerto announced he was Rockwood, called Varela a “claimer,” threatened to stab him and have his "homeboys" beat him, and punched him. Varela feared leaving home for weeks.
Puerto was tried and a jury convicted him of criminal threats (Pen. Code § 422) and battery (§ 242); gang enhancements were found true for both offenses (§ 186.22); the court found a prior strike (Three Strikes) conviction (§§ 667/1170.12).
Trial evidence included LAPD gang expert testimony that Puerto was a Rockwood member and that announcing gang ID, threatening/stabbing threats, and violence serve to intimidate the community and benefit the gang; defense presented a gang expert who opined Puerto was not an active member.
The prosecution relied on certified court records showing Puerto’s 2013 nolo contendere plea to assault (§ 245(a)(1)) as the prior strike; defense challenged sufficiency of proof and pleading.
At sentencing Puerto was awarded 306 days’ custody/conduct credit (153 actual + 153 conduct); he contested that he was entitled to 416 days (208 actual + 208 conduct).
The Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions and gang findings, upheld the prior-strike finding, and ordered correction of the custody/conduct credit to 416 days.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for gang enhancements (186.22)	Evidence (Puerto’s gang admission, threats, punching, expert opinion on benefit to gang) shows offenses were committed for gang benefit and with intent to promote gang crime	Actions were personal (removing a suspected claimer) not intended to benefit the gang; expert testimony lacked adequate foundation	Affirmed: viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution, substantial evidence supports gang findings (expert opinion + defendant’s announcements and conduct sufficient to infer benefit and specific intent)
Prior strike allegation (Three Strikes) — pleading & proof	Prosecution amended information to allege prior § 245(a)(1) conviction and introduced official records establishing the plea	The information did not originally allege a strike; § 245(a)(1) can be divisible and may not qualify as a serious felony without proof of deadly weapon or GBI as required by Delgado	Affirmed: record was augmented with amended information; the 2013 version of § 245(a)(1) only criminalized assault with a deadly weapon (now separate from GBI prong), so the official records sufficiently proved a qualifying serious felony strike conviction
Sentence credit computation (§§ 2900.5, 4019)	Court awarded credit as reflected in minutes but must follow statutory entitlement for actual days in custody and applicable conduct credits	Puerto argued he was arrested Sept. 14, 2014 and remained continuously in custody through sentencing on Apr. 9, 2015 (208 days), so he is entitled to 416 total days (208 actual + 208 conduct)	Modified: credited Puerto with 416 days (208 actual + 208 conduct). Trial court to correct minute order and abstract of judgment

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for sufficiency review under which a reviewing court asks whether any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
People v. Vang, 52 Cal.4th 1038 (expert opinion that particular conduct benefited a gang can support a § 186.22 enhancement)
People v. Albillar, 51 Cal.4th 47 (expert testimony that violent acts enhance a gang’s reputation may support a gang enhancement)
People v. Delgado, 43 Cal.4th 1059 (when a prior offense statute is divisible—allowing non-qualifying variants—courts must ensure the record shows the prior conviction was for the qualifying variant)
People v. Lindberg, 45 Cal.4th 1 (review of sufficiency of the evidence framed by viewing the record in the light most favorable to the judgment)