People v. Resendez, B269608

Michael Resendez (defendant) attacked a bicyclist in Baldwin Park, shouted gang identifiers, and made gang-related statements during and after the assault; charged with assault with gang enhancement and assault with a deadly weapon; jury convicted and found gang and great bodily injury enhancements true.
Detective Acuna, a gang expert, identified Resendez as an East Side Bolen member from the Locos clique and described East Side Bolen as an organized gang with five cliques and defined Baldwin Park territory.
Expert testified predicate felonies were committed by Francisco Marin and Juan Ledezma, who self-identified with East Side Bolen and the Rascals subset; testimony indicated collaboration among subsets.
Two incarcerated East Side Bolen members (from Rascals and Midgetcharros) testified as character witnesses for Resendez and demonstrated inter-subset loyalty and cooperation (e.g., arranging transport from prison).
Police witnesses corroborated that subset members ‘‘hang out together’’ and back each other up; court sentenced defendant to 10 years; defendant appealed arguing insufficient evidence to prove the gang enhancement under People v. Prunty.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove a criminal street gang under the STEP Act when predicate offenses were committed by subsets	Prosecution: evidence showed collaboration, shared identity, and contacts among subsets (Locos, Rascals, Midgetcharros) such that subsets form one gang; thus predicate offenses satisfied	Resendez: under Prunty, prosecutor failed to prove an associational/organizational connection between the subset perpetrators and the larger gang	Court affirmed: substantial evidence showed inter-subset loyalty, shared territory, and direct contacts; Prunty distinguishable and gang enhancement supported

People v. Prunty, 62 Cal.4th 59 (Cal. 2015) (STEP Act requires proof of associational/organizational connection when predicate crimes are shown to be committed by subsets)
People v. Albillar, 51 Cal.4th 47 (Cal. 2010) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence: review the record in the light most favorable to the judgment)