People v. Ramirez
E074402
| Cal. Ct. App. | Dec 9, 2021Background
- In February 2016, about 20 inmates fought in Day Room No. 4 at Riverside County’s Southwest Detention Center; surveillance video showed Albert (a shot caller) initiate a beating of Arturo Guerrero, with Jamie Ramirez and Albert Villa among several inmates who joined in.
- Jail staff identified Albert as the shot caller; Deputies and experts testified about jail “shot caller” dynamics and prison-gang structure, particularly La Eme (the Mexican Mafia) and how local street-gang members become “Southsiders” while in custody.
- Deputy Torres (La Eme expert) tied the assault to La Eme politics based on a recorded phone call by the victim referencing “tio” and a power struggle; Torres opined defendants joined to support Albert’s La Eme authority.
- The prosecution introduced admissible evidence and certified conviction records proving three local Riverside street gangs (SSC, ESR, CVL) meet the STEP Act’s “criminal street gang” definition, but presented only general, unspecific testimony about La Eme’s predicate criminal activity.
- A jury convicted Ramirez and Villa of assault (§ 245(a)(4)) and found true gang enhancements (§ 186.22(b)); sentences included added terms for the gang findings. On appeal, defendants challenged sufficiency of evidence for the gang enhancements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the record contains sufficient evidence to sustain the § 186.22(b) gang enhancements (i.e., that the assault was for the benefit of a proven criminal street gang) | Prosecution argued the assault was ordered by a La Eme shot caller and done to benefit La Eme; alternatively (on appeal) suggested defendants could have acted to benefit Albert’s outside gang (SSC) based on tattoos and affiliations | Defendants argued the People failed to prove La Eme satisfied the STEP Act elements (no pattern of predicate offenses shown) and thus failed to establish the required nexus between a proven gang and the assault | The court vacated the gang-enhancement findings because the People did not prove La Eme met the STEP Act definition (no evidence of the required predicate offenses/pattern) and there is no record support that the assault was committed to benefit any of the proved local gangs (no nexus). The convictions for assault otherwise affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Prunty, 62 Cal.4th 59 (Cal. 2015) (prosecution must prove the gang it establishes is the same gang the defendant sought to benefit; nexus required)
- People v. Duran, 97 Cal.App.4th 1448 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (predicate offenses must be committed on separate occasions or by two or more persons to show a pattern)
- People v. Loeun, 17 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1997) (defining elements for proving a criminal street gang under the STEP Act)
- People v. Gardeley, 14 Cal.4th 605 (Cal. 1996) (STEP Act requires more than mere gang membership; the crime must be gang-related)
- People v. Albillar, 51 Cal.4th 47 (Cal. 2010) (not every crime by gang members is gang-related; nexus to gang activity required)
- People v. Martinez, 116 Cal.App.4th 753 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (gang membership and criminal history alone are insufficient to prove a gang-related crime)
- People v. Villalobos, 145 Cal.App.4th 310 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (upholding enhancement where evidence established a clear nexus between the crime and the proved gang)
- People v. Garcia, 244 Cal.App.4th 1349 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (gang-enhancement sustained where record showed crime was committed to benefit the proved gang)
- People v. Leon, 161 Cal.App.4th 149 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (enhancement upheld where location/target tied the crime to the gang’s activities)