People v. Rios
222 Cal. App. 4th 542
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Defendant Jose Rios convicted by jury of (1) carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle, (2) vehicle theft, and (3) street terrorism; mistrial on a concealed firearm count.
- Jury found true gang enhancements for firearm ownership and for benefit of a criminal street gang; street terrorism conviction tied to §186.22(a).
- Rodriguez held lone actors cannot be guilty of §186.22(a); this issue prompted concession and reversal of the street terrorism conviction.
- Court held Rodriguez does not categorically bar §186.22(b)(1) enhancements for lone actors, but the evidence must still satisfy the specific intent prong.
- Court found insufficient evidence to support the §186.22(b)(1) enhancements on counts 1 and 3; need for remand to correct fines/fees.
- Judgment reversed; strike §186.22(a) conviction and §186.22(b)(1) true findings; remand for resentencing on counts 1 and 3 and correction of fines/fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §186.22(a) applies to lone actors | Rios argues Rodriguez bars the street terrorism conviction | State contends Rodriguez does not bar enhancements | Conviction for §186.22(a) reversed (insufficient evidence) |
| Whether §186.22(b)(1) can apply to lone actors after Rodriguez | Rodriguez dicta permits enhancements for lone actors | Enhancement should be allowed if applicable | Held that §186.22(b)(1) may apply to lone actors |
| Sufficiency of evidence for the §186.22(b)(1) specific intent prong | Expert testimony alone may prove intent | Conjectural/unsupported evidence insufficient | Evidence insufficient to prove specific intent prong for counts 1 and 3 |
| Whether instructional errors require remand | Rodriguez-based instructions were required | No preservation or merit shown | Remand issue rendered moot by reversal of §186.22(a) and related findings |
| Fines and fees errors | Second restitution/fines improperly imposed; amounts must be corrected | N/A | Strick second restitution (§1202.4); align related fines; reduce court fees on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. California, 55 Cal.4th 1125 (Cal. 2012) (lone actor cannot violate §186.22(a); enhancements discussed (dicta as to b(1)))
- Albillar v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 47 (Cal. 2010) (two-prong 186.22(b)(1) analysis; evidence of intent and conduct required)
- Ochoa v. City of Orange, 179 Cal.App.4th 650 (Cal. App. 2009) (limits on gang-enhancement sufficiency when facts do not tie to gang activity)
- Frank S., 141 Cal.App.4th 1192 (Cal. App. 2006) (circumstantial evidence problems in gang enhancements)
- Ramon v. People, 175 Cal.App.4th 843 (Cal. App. 2009) (sufficiency of evidence for specific intent prong; caution against relying on mere possibility)
- Vang v. Superior Court, 52 Cal.4th 1038 (Cal. 2011) (gang expert evidence to prove enhancement when based on evidence trackable to trial)
- Daniel C., 195 Cal.App.4th 1350 (Cal. App. 2011) (sufficiency of specific-intent prong in lone-actor context)
- Gardeley v. Superior Court, 14 Cal.4th 605 (Cal. 1996) (framework for STEP Act gang pattern and predicate offenses)