People v. Soriano
G058363
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 8, 2021Background
- On Aug. 1, 2018, deputies detained Jean Ervin Soriano and an associate, B. Ceja, while they were walking near a known Varrio Viejo gang hangout in San Juan Capistrano.
- A deputy recovered a fully concealed 4–5 inch fixed‑blade knife and two syringes from Soriano’s front pocket after Soriano warned the deputy to be careful not to cut himself.
- Soriano is an admitted/identified Varrio Viejo member; Ceja is an associate. Both lived in the gang’s claimed territory.
- Prosecutors presented gang expert Deputy Ayala, who—via a hypothetical mirroring the facts—opined the concealed‑knife possession was for the benefit of, in association with, and to promote the gang.
- A jury convicted Soriano of carrying a concealed dirk/dagger (§ 21310) and found true a two‑year gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)); the trial court sentenced him, including the enhancement.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the gang enhancement for insufficient evidence under the substantial‑evidence standard mindful of the beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt burden, and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for § 186.22(b) gang enhancement | Ayala’s expert opinion and the facts (member in gang territory with another member and a concealed knife) suffice to show the conduct was gang‑related and intended to benefit/promote the gang. | Expert opinion was speculative; no facts showed Soriano acted for the gang or had intent to promote gang activity. | Reversed: insufficient evidence to prove the enhancement beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Reliance on gang expert hypothetical testimony | Expert’s training, experience, and hypothetical based on case facts support a reliable opinion tying the offense to the gang. | Hypothetical testimony lacked factual predicates specific to Soriano’s intent; amounted to speculation. | Court found the expert’s opinion speculative and of insufficient legal significance to sustain the enhancement. |
| Jury instruction clarification on “in association” | Court’s reference to ordinary meaning (CALCRIM No. 200) was adequate. | Jury had requested meaning; defendant argued clarification error. | Issue rendered moot by reversal of enhancement; no reversible error found in instruction answer. |
| Fines and fees imposed at sentencing | N/A (People sought to impose standard fines/fees) | Defendant challenged certain fines/fees at trial court. | Moot on appeal; defendant may raise objections at new sentencing hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Conservatorship of O.B., 9 Cal.5th 989 (Cal. 2020) (appellate substantial‑evidence review must account for the applicable standard of proof)
- People v. Ramon, 175 Cal.App.4th 843 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (expert speculation tying isolated offense to gang insufficient to support enhancement)
- People v. Ochoa, 179 Cal.App.4th 650 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (gang enhancement cannot rest solely on membership and commission of crime)
- People v. Albillar, 51 Cal.4th 47 (Cal. 2010) (not every crime by gang members is gang related; defines association requirement)
- People v. Vang, 52 Cal.4th 1038 (Cal. 2011) (gang expert opinion can supply substantial evidence but must have solid evidentiary value)
- People v. Rubalcava, 23 Cal.4th 322 (Cal. 2000) (possession of concealed instrument does not require intent to use it)
- People v. Garcia, 153 Cal.App.4th 1499 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (distinguishable: defendant’s testimony showed possession tied to gang conflict/protection)