Filed 7/28/15 P. v. R odriguez CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). Th is opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
RAUL PEREZ RODRIGUEZ,

Def endant and Appellant. H040074 (Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. No. F21710)

Defendant Raul Perez Rodriguez was found guilty of premeditated attempted

mur der committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. On appeal, defendant argues there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of premeditation and the gang enhancement. In addition, defendant argues the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on volu ntary intoxication as it related to his claim of imperfect self

- defense.
S TATEMENT O F T HE F ACTS A ND C ASE On October 23 , 2011, the victim in this case, Victor Salazar Garcia was living on
B i x b y S t r e e t i n S a n t a C r

u z

. S a l a z a r G a r c i a s t a t e d t h a t h e l i v e d i n S u r e n ͂ o t e r r i t o r y , b u t h e was not in the gang. That night, Salazar Garcia had gone to Watsonville with his family, and when he returned around 8:00 p.m., he found another car parked in his parking spot. His family got out of his car and went into the house, and Salazar Garcia waited in the car for the person in his space to move. When the driver of the car came out to move his car,
Salazar Garcia backed his own car out and over the sidewalk on the other side of the2

street. Salazar Garcia sat in the driver’s seat of his car with the windows down while he
smoked a cigarette. While sitting in his c ar smoking, Salazar Garcia saw defendant walking toward him. Since Salazar Garcia was blocking the sidewalk, he tried to move his car out of way, but had to brake suddenly when another car drove by. At that point, de fendant said, “Puro Norte. Te voya cargar la chingada.” Salazar Garcia knew that “Puro Norte,” was a gang slogan, and understood the remaining statement to mean “ [ h ] e’s going to kill me.” The Spanish interpreter stated that this phrase means “I’m going to fuck you up.” While defendant was verbally threatening Salazar Garcia, he stabbed Salazar Garcia through the open car window with a knife he was holding in his left hand. Salazar Garcia said there was no verbal altercation before the attack, and that he said “What’s happening? What’s going on?” to defendant. Salazar Garcia tried to grab the knife as defendant was attempting to stab him a third time, but end ed up cutting his hand. Salazar Garcia then let go of the brake and pushed the accelerator, cr ashing his car into the fence and stairway of his apart ment across the street. Salazar Garcia got out of his car and was bleeding and having trouble breathing. Salazar Garcia shouted at defendant, “Que onda, hijo de puta madre,” which means,
“What’s up you son of a bitch?” At this point, Salazar Garcia’s wife came out of the house, and saw defendant walk away while yelling, “Puro Norte, faggot.” She said defendant was wearing whit e tennis shoes, white socks, black clothing, an d a black cap.
When Sant a Cruz Police Officer Karina Cecena arrived, she saw Salazar Garcia sitting on the ground with his shirt off. He was using a blue shirt to apply pressure to his
chest wound. Officer Cecena looked inside Salazar Garcia’s car and found blood on the
seat, s teering wheel, window and door. She also found Salazar Garcia’s brownish cap
with a blue star that is associated with the Dallas Cowbo ys inside the car. Salazar Garcia was taken by ambulance to Dominican Hospital and then by air to Santa Clara County Valley Medical Cent er. He had two stab wounds to his chest, one on3

his shoulder and three or four on his left hand. One of his fingers required surgery. The chest wounds were just below Salazar Garcia’s collar bone, and one or both penetrated
his chest wall an d caused his lung to collapse. The chest wounds were potentially lethal
wi thout treatment. A subsequent investigation by Detective Michael Hedley of the Santa Cruz Police Department revealed fingerprints belonging to defendant inside Salazar Gar cia’s car.
Detective Hedley also found a metal watch on the floorboard of the driver’s side of
Salazar Garcia’s car. There was blood on the watchband. Detective Hedley discovered
DNA from two sources on the watch: defendant and Salazar Garcia. Detectiv e Hedley learned that defendant was on parole, and contacted defendant’s parole offi cer, Edward
Garcia. Detective Hedley and Garcia went to defendant’s residence to conduct a parole search, but defendant was not there. Garcia asked defendant’s family to have defendant contact him. Defendant did not contact Garcia over the next several days, which Garcia
found to be unusual for defendant. Garcia and the police arrested Salazar Garcia a few days later at a M otel Six in Gilroy. During the arrest, officer s seized a cell phone from defendant’s room. One text message on the phone referred to playing games and “shooting scraps.” “Scraps” is a
d e r o g a t o r y t e r m f

o r S u r e n ͂ o gang members. Another text message sent after the attack on
Salazar Garcia referred to “crashing with [ my ] homies.” After the arrest, Detective Hedley interviewed defendant. Defendant denied having a cell phone, and said the phone the police had taken belonged to his girl,

“ Marivel.” Defendant told Hedley he did not know why the Santa Cr uz Police wanted to talk to him, that he had not been in Santa Cruz the previous week, had not lost a watch, had not stabbed a man, and had not been “banging.” When defendant was being processed after his arrest, authorities noted that he had a huelga bi r d t a t t o o o n h i s s t o m a c h , a t a t t o o t h a t r e a d N o r t e n ͂ o o n h i s s t o m a c h , a t a t t o o that read “NSW” on his chest, a “X4” tattoo under the “NSW” tattoo on his chest, a tattoo4

that read “Watson: In amigos we trust” on his back, and a tattoo of a set of red l ips o n his
neck. When defendant was booked into Santa Cruz County Jail he requested he be classified and placed with “Northerners.” Santa Cruz County J ail personnel place
N o r t e n ͂ o m e m b e r s i n t h e “ N

- Unit,” where defendant was placed on his request. While
de fendant was in custody, he received a new tattoo of a huelga bird on his neck. During tria l, Santa Cruz Police Detective La u ren Schonfield testified as an expert

o n S a n t a C l a r a C o u n t y g a n g s

. S h e s t a t e d t h a t N o r t e n ͂ o s a n d S u r e n

͂ o s c o m m i t c r i m e s s u c h

as v andalism, drug sales, arson, stabbings, robbery, attempted homicide and homicide. Only gang members have gang

- related tattoos. S u r e n ͂ o s associate with the
number 13, and have adopted the color blue. N o r t e n ͂ o s use the number 14 and the color
red.
S u r e n

͂ os have areas of “turf” that they control in Santa Cruz. There have been
several incidents of violence between N o r t e n ͂ o s and S u r e n

͂ o s in are a s of Santa Cruz controlled by S u r e n

͂ o s . Many of these incidents involved cars and multiple N o r t e n ͂ o s , however, t here are also cases where a gang member acted alone. When a gang member
acts alone it is called a “jale,” or mission, and it is often done by a younger gang member to gain status in the gang. During a jale, a gang member may not wear gang colors and
woul d use a knife in order to make less noise and draw attention to the crime. By saying “Puro Norte, puto,” a N o r t e n ͂ o gang member w o u l d a d v e r t i s e t o t h e S u r e n ͂ o neighborhood
that this was a N o r t e n

͂ o crime.
Detective Schonfield further stated that when a N o r t e n ͂ o e n t e r s S u r e n

͂ o t u r f i n Santa Cruz and commits a crime, the N o r t e n ͂ o has “disrespected [ the ] turf,” an d it does not matter if the victim is actually a S u r e n ͂ o m e m b e r

. By doing this, the N o r t e n ͂ o is

s a y i n g t o t h e i r f

e l l o w g a n g m e m

b e r s , “ I w a s n ’ t a f

r a i d o f t h o s e S u r e n

͂ o s

. I w e n t i n a n d
committed this crime. We don’t need to be afraid of the m.” In additio n, she stated that at5

times, gang members commit crimes against others they believe are members of a rival gang based on clothing alone. Watsonville Police Detective Jarrod Pisturino also testified as a gang expert.
N o r t e n ͂ o s a r e t h e m a i n g a n g i n W a t s o n v ille, with at least 1500 members there.
W a t s o n v i l l e h a d a n u m b e r o f N o r t e n ͂ o s ub g r o u p s , i n c l u d i n g C i t y H a l l W a t s o n , N o r t h S i d e C h i c o s , W a t s o n V a r r i o N o r t e , C l i f f o r d M a n o r L o c o s , a n d N o r t h S i d e W a t s o n

. N o r t e n ͂ o s associate with the color red and the letter “N.” They also use the huelga bird as one of their symbols. N o r t e n

͂ o s o f t e n h a v e t a t t o o s , a n d o n l y g a n g m e m b e r s a r e p e r m i t t e d t o h a v e gang tattoos. If non

- gang members have tattoos, the y may be beaten, sta bbed or
murdered.
Detective Pisturino testifi ed that defendant is a member of North Side Watson, and committed a gang

- related carjacking in 1995, and a gang

- related robbery in 2006.
D e t e c t i v e P i s t

u r i n o b e l i e v e d t h a t d e f

e n d a n t w a s a n a c t i v e N o r t e n ͂ o b a s e d o n t h e f

a c t t h a t defendant had gang

- related t a t t o o s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h N o r t e n ͂ o s , i n c l u d i n g t h e h e u l g a b i r d

a n d t h e w o r d N o r t e n

͂ o o n h i s s t o m a c h , t h e l e t t e r s “ N S W ” o n h i s c h e s t ( r e f e r r i n g t o N o r t h
S i d e W a t s o n ) , a n d t h e r e d l i p s o n h i s n e c k ( r e f e r r i n g t o b e i n g “ k i s s e d ” b y t h e N o r t e n ͂ o lifestyle). In add ition to the tattoos, other factors led Detect ive Pisturino to conclude that
d e f e n d a n t w a s a N o r t e n

͂ o i n c l u d i n g t h e f

a c t t h a t h e s h o u t e d “ P u r o N o r t e ” a f t e r t h e stabbing, Salazar Garcia was wearing a blue shirt and Dallas Cowboys hat and defendant may have b e l i e v e d h i m t o b e a S u r e n ͂ o, the gang

- related text messages on defendant’s phone such as “shooting scraps,” and “crashing with my homies,” defendant’s admission to jail personnel that he was a “Northerner,” and his placement in the “N Unit” in the jail. Defendant testified at trial. He said that he grew up in Watsonville, and when he

w a s 1 3 o r 1 4 h e b e c a m e i n v o l v e d w i t h t h e N o r t e n ͂ o g a n g

. H e e v e n t

u a l l y b e c a m e a N o r t e n ͂ o a n d w a s “

j u m p e d i n , ” m e a n i n g h e w a s b e a t e n u p b y o t h e r g a n g m e m

b e r s

. W h e n he was 1 3 or 14 he got his first tattoo of a cross with a “14” on his left hand. He got other gang tattoos before he was 19, including on e on his back that said “Watson.” In 1995,6

defendant was convicted in Santa Cruz County of carjacking and felony assault with force likely to caus e great bodily injury. D efendant testified that the car jacking was

gang

- related, and that he did commit gang crimes , but that he never had to commit a crime for his gang. Defendant was sentenced to prison in 1995 and stayed there un til 2005. When he
was released , he went back to Watsonville to live with his parents. In 2006 he met Marivel Rodriquez , and that same year he was convicted of felony assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury. Defendant admitted that this was gang

- related. Defendant went back to prison where he stayed until 2007. While in prison, defendant
h a d “ N o r t e n

͂ o ” t a t t o oed across his chest. Defendant was not involved in gang activity
after he was released in 2007.
In 2008 defendant and Marivel were married and t heir son Raul was born in 2009.
In 2010 , defendant returned to prison on a parole violation. He was released in October or November 2010 and returned to Watsonville. Defendant and Marivel found a place to
live in Watson ville in January 2011. During th e time he was living with Marivel in 2011, defendant was not hanging around with gang members at al l . Defendant was spending time with his family and eventually got a job at Surf City Smoothies in Watsonville. When he was no t working,
defendant was at ho me and drinking, but said that the drinking “got like ad dicting, pretty
much.” Defendant lied to his parole officer and told him he was living with his parents when he was actually living with Marivel. This was a violation of one of his parole
conditions

. Defendant’s hours at the smoothie shop starting being cut, and he worked in the fields picking strawberries. Defendant said that he was “fad [ ing ] away” from the gang as

m a n y N o r t e n

͂ o s d i d a t h i s a g e ( 3 5 ) , a n d t h e r e w a s n o p r e s s u r e t o c o m m i t crimes for the

gang.7

Marivel testified that in 2011 , defendant was occasionally working and acting as a father and that he was not “gang

- banging.” Marivel al so said that defendant used to be a
N o r t e n ͂ o , but that she was not sure what his current gang status was. On October 21, 2011, defendant lied to Marivel and said he was going out to look for a job. Defendant instead went to a barbeque at his cousin Juni or Perez’s house in Watsonville, and drank a lot when he was there. When defendant came home in the early morning hours of October 22, 2011, Marivel would not let him inside because defendant
was intoxicated and she told him to leave. Later that day, def endant went to a car show with Junior and then a family reunion of one of Junior’s friend ’ s , where he drank a lot. Defendant woke up hung over on October 23, 2011, and went back to Junior’s
house where he drank more alcohol and smoked marijuana. At som e point later in the afternoon, defendant and Junior went to a barbeque at one of Junior’s friend ’ s houses in
W atsonville. Defendant drank non

- stop at the barbeque, including lots of beer and six to
seven shots of hard alcohol.
Defendant said that he di d not remember leaving the barbeque, or where he went
when he left. He d id not remember being on Bixby S treet in Santa Cruz, and whatever street he was on, he was not there to stab or kill anyone. Defendant said that he was “pretty much intoxicated,” and did not remember how he got there. Defendant testified that his first memory of that night was being on Pacific
Avenue in Santa Cruz near a Taco Be ll and a liquor store. Defendant wanted to try to find a ride back to Watsonville and he needed a phone b ecause he did not have his with
him. Defendant wanted to go to the 7

- Eleven store that was near the hotel where he used
to work so he could u se the pay

- phone there. Defendant said that he remembered crossing a bridge, and said, “I just

— the fi rst

street that I seen, I turned down. Looked kind of dark a little bit, so I just went down the street, and pretty much right there I relieved myself.” Defendant did not remember exactly what he was wearing, but said that it was probably a b l ack and whi t e shirt, b aggy8

black pants, and bla ck Nike tennis shoes. Defendant also said that he did not rem ember wearing a hat. Defendant thought he was near his old job. He knew that the Beach Flats area of
S a n t a C r u z w a s S u r e n

͂ o t e r r i t o r y , b u t d i d n o t k n o w a n y t h i n g a b o u t t h e g a n g s t a t

u s o f t h e neighborhood where he was. Defendant said that he was dr unk and was stumbling. He

w as worried because he could see the lights of the Boardwalk and knew he was close to
Beach Flats.
D e f e n d a n t s a i d t h a t a t s o m e p o i n t h e k n e w t h a t i f a S u r e n

͂ o r e c o g n i z e d h i m a s a N o r t e n ͂ o , he could be killed. Defendant began walking out of the neighborho od. He
heard a car and people pass by. Defendant believed these were gang members and he
became scared and nervous. Defendant heard a car passing him and then he heard
another vehicle “revving” before it pulled in front of him on the sidewalk.
Defenda nt said that the vehicle was about five feet a way from him w hen he saw
the driver. Defendant testified that the car stopped suddenly and he saw the driver looking at him. Defendant said that he “just reacted,” and started punching the driver through the open driver’s

- side window. Defendant said that he remembered punching but did not remember having a knife and could no t remember sta bbing Salazar Garcia. Defendant attacked Salazar Garcia first, because he said that his first instinct was to protect him self. Defendant thought he would be shot or killed if Salazar Garcia got out of his car. Defendant said that he felt threatened by Salazar Garcia even thought he did

not see a knife or gun and did not recognize Salazar Garcia as a gang member.
Defendant did not remember whether Salazar Garcia said anything to him, was wearing a hat, or what color shirt he had on. Defendant repeated that he felt threatened because “of the way the car got in front
of me , and cut me off, and I did not know what was happe ning. I did not know what was going on. Felt like something was going to happen to me.” Defendant said that he was
almost run over when Salazar Garcia’s car accelerated and crashed across the street.9

Defendant said that he tried to run because he heard people coming out. Defendant denied that he walked toward Salazar Garcia after the car crashed, but later said that he
did not remember whether he followed Salazar Garcia. Defendant said that he could not run very fast because he was drunk. Defendant did not remember ever saying “Puro Norte, puto.” Defendant said that he remembered waking up on October 24, 2011 at Junior’s friend’s house where he had attended the barbeque the night before. Defendant did not
know Junior’s friend’s name or the addres s of the house. Defendant woke up with a hangover, and with dried blood on his hands, pants and shirt. Defendant threw his shirt and pants away. Defendant only remembered that he had been in a f ight the previous day. When defendant picked up his cell p hone the next day, he did not call the police or his parole officer , Garcia , to inform them he had been in a fight. Defendant said that he did not remember telling a nyone about the fight.
Defendant found out soon after the incident that his parole offic er, Garcia , was looking for him. Defendant did not contact Garcia because he was scared. Defendant said, “I knew something was wrong, because of the fact that he tried to contact me right away when he had just seen me, like, a week before that.” Defenda nt believed he “had done something pretty bad, something wrong.” Defendant said, “I knew I did something wrong, but I did not know [what].” Over the next few days, defendant stayed with a number of friends in a number of places. Eventually, defendant m et up with Marivel at a hotel in Gilroy where he was
arrested. Defendant testified that he did not know why he lied to Detective Hedley during his interview about not having a cell phone. Defendant said that he had used his cell phone to read about the Bixby Street incident on the Santa C ruz Sentinel Web site.
Defendant said that when he was take n to the county jail, he did not asked to be placed in the “N

- Unit , ” because the staff already knew he was a Northerner. Defendant10

first testified that he di d n o t r e m e m b e r t e l l i n g j a i l p e r s o n n e l t h a t h e w a s a N o r t e n ͂ o affiliate, but later remembered that he had

. Defendant said that he was not a gang “dropout” when he was arrested , and said that he d id not know how to dropout. While he was in jail awaiting t rial, defendant got a huelga bird tattoo to cover up a
tattoo of the name of his former girlfriend. Defendant testified that his huelga bird tattoo had no gang association, and that it was only to express pride at being a Mexican farm
worker. Defendant s aid that the huelga bird is the symbol on the Uni ted Farm Workers flag. Defendant denied that the huelga bird is associated with Nort e n ͂ o s , a n d s a i d t h a t t h i s is the view of gang experts only. Later at trial, defendant stated that the United Farm Workers Union flag had a huelga bird with five wings, and that his tattoo of the bird had four wings. Defendant
stated that four is the num b e r a s s o c i a t e d w i t h N o r t e n ͂ o s

. Defendant then admitted that his
h u e l g a b i r d t a t t o o w a s a N o r t e n ͂ o t a t t o o

. Defendant said that while he was in jail, Marivel called him and asked him to snitch and cut his ties with the gang. Defendant said that he had n ot cut his ties with the

g a n g , a n d h e i s s t i l l a n a c t i v e N o r t e n ͂ o

. D e f e n d a n t s a i d t h a t t h e N o r t e n ͂ o s a r e a s t r e e t g a n g that commits crimes like attempted murder. In April 2013, defendant was charged w ith will f ul, deliber a te, a nd pr e m editat e d

att e m p ted murder ( P e n. Cod e , §§ 664/187, subd. (a ) ). 1 The in f o r m a tion also alleged t hat
defendant in f

licted g re a t bodi l y i n

ju r y ( § 12 0 22.7, subd. (a)), a nd c o mmit t ed the o ff ense f or the bene f

it o f a cr i m inal s t reet gang (§ 1 8 6.22, s ubd. ( b)(1)). Finally, t h e in f or m at i on al l eged that defendant had a pr i or “strike” c onvicti o n ( § 667, sub d s. (b)

- (i)), and had
served a p rior prison te r m (§ 6 6 7.5, s u bd. ( b )).

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.11

After trial, the jury found defendant guilty of attempted premeditated murder, and
found all of the enhancement s true. Following a bench trial, the court found defendant
had suffered a prior “st r ik e ” conviction, a n d had pr e vious l y served time in prison

. Defendant was ordered to serve a prison term of 15 years to life, pl u s a consecu t ive
f our

- y e ar dete r m in a te te r m

. This appeal followed.
D ISCUSSION Defendant argues there is insufficient evidence to support the finding of premeditation and deliberation, and the findi ng that defendant committed attempted
murder for the benefit of a criminal street gang.
“The law we apply in assessing a claim of sufficiency of the evidence is well
established: ‘ “ ‘ “[T]he court must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence

— that is,
evidence whic h is reasonable, credible, and of solid value

— such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” ’ ” ’ [Citation.] The standard is the same under the state and federal due process clauses. [Citation.] ‘We

p resume “ ‘in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.’ [Citation.] This standard applies whether direct
or circumstantial evidence is involved.” [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” ( People v. Gonz ales and Soliz (2011 ) 52 Cal.4th 254, 294 .)
Premeditation and Deliberation “Like first degree murder, attempted first degree murder requires a finding of premeditation and deliberation.” ( People v. Villegas (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1223 , fn. omitted .) “ ‘Deliberation’ refers to careful weighing of considerations in forming a course of action; ‘premeditation’ means thought over in advance.” ( People v. Koontz (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1041, 1080.) “An intentional killing is premeditated and deliberate if it

o ccurred as the result of preexisting thought and reflection rather than unconsidered or12

rash impulse. [Citations.] However, the requisite reflection need not span a specific or extended period of time. ” ( People v. Stitely (2005) 35 Cal.4th 514, 543.)

“ ‘ “ ‘Thoughts may follow each other with great rapidity and cold, calculated judgment may be arrived at quickly . . . .’ ” ’ [Citation.]” ( People v. Stitely , supra, 35
Cal.4th at p. 543.) “The test is not time, but reflection.” ( People v. Bloyd (198 7) 43 Cal.3d 333, 348.)
In People v. Anderson (1968) 70 Cal.2d 15, 26

- 27 ( Anderson ) , the California Supreme Court described three catego ries of evidence that can show premeditaton and deliberation: motive, pl anning activity, and manner of killing. These c ategories are not

exc lusive of others or invariably necessary or required. ( People v. Koontz , supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 1081.) Nor must they “be present in any particular combination to find substantial evidence of premeditation and deliberation. [Citatio n.] ‘However, [w]hen the record discloses evidence in all three categories, the verdict generally will be sustained.’ [Citation.]” ( People v. Stitely , supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 543.)
Defendant argues that the evidence in this case does not satisfy the An derson
framework , because there was little evidence of motive, scant evidence of planning, and
the fact that defendant stabbed Salazar Garcia twice in the chest does not show that his attempt to kill Salazar Garcia was “so particular a nd exacting that [he] must have [attempted to] inten tionally kill[] according to a ‘preconceived design ’ to take the
victi m’s life in a particular way

. ” ( Anderson , supra , 70 Cal.2d at p . 27) Defendant further asserts that the surrounding circumstances show that he stabbed Sa lazar Garcia as the result of a hasty impulse in an “explosion of violence , ” and not as a result of a calculated plan.
I n our view of the record, there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could
infer that “ ‘the [attack] occurred as the result of p reexisting reflection rather than
unconsidered or rash impulse.’ ” ( People v. Steele (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 1230, 1249.) First, there was evidence of motive and planning

. Defendant , a Nor t e n ͂ o, intentionally went13

i n t o S u r e n ͂ o territory dressed all in black, at night, armed with a knife. The jury was
entitled to dis believe defendant’s testimony that he was there by “accident,” and instead believe the gang expert’s testimony that N o r t e n ͂ o s som etimes enter S u r e n ͂ o territory to commit crimes in order to disrespect S u r e n ͂ o s. The fact that defendant was in S u r e n ͂ o territory and was armed suggests that his attack on Salazar Garcia was premeditated. ( People v. Felix (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1618, 162 7 ( Felix ) .) In addition to the surrounding circumstance s of the attack, defendant’s own words directed at Salazar Garcia evince premeditation. Salazar Garcia testified that when defendant approached him, defendant said in Spanish, “Puro Norte Te voy a ca rgar chingada.” The first part of the phrase means, “Pure North,” referenc es defendant’s
N o r t e n ͂ o affiliation, and the latter part means, “I’m going to fuck you up.” Salazar Garcia testified he understood defendant to mean, “he’s going to kill me.” The jury was entitled to give weight to defendant’s verbal threats to Salazar Garcia made clos e to the attack as evidence of premeditation. ( See, e.g. , Felix , supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at p. 1626

- 1627.)
The manner of the attack here also supports a finding of premeditation. Salazar Garcia sustained two knife wounds to his chest, just below the col larbone, and one or both caused a collapsed lung. Defendant used great force to inflict the wounds, using one hand to brace himself against the car while he swung the knife wi th the other hand. Based on the circumstances, and the fact that Salazar Garcia did not provoke defendant, the jury could conclude that defendant attacked with premeditation and deliberation. ( See, e.g. , People v. Lunafelix (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 97,102 [ lack of provocation by the victim is a strong factor in concluding that an attac k “was deliberately and re flectively
conceived in advance ” ]. ) Here, the totality of evidence, including defendant’s gang affiliation, his statements at the time of the attack, the fact that he was armed, and the manner of the
attack could lead a reaso nable jury to conclude that defendant attempted to kill Salazar14

with premeditation and deliberation. We find there was substantial evidence to support defendant’s conviction for attempted premeditated murder. Gang E nhancement A section 186.22, subdivisio n (b) (1) gang allegation has two elements. The crime must be “committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang,” and the defendant must harbor “the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any cri minal conduct by gang members.” (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1).) Here, the prosecution’s theory in support of the gang enhancement was that defendant attempted to murder Salazar Garcia for the benefit of the N o r t e n ͂ o s , and did so with the specific intent to ass ist, further, or promote criminal conduct by N o r t e n ͂ o s. In support of the gang enhancement, the prosecution presented the evidence of their gang expert, Pisturino, who opined that defendant attempted to murder Salazar
Garcia for the benefit of the Nort e n ͂ o gang. Pisturino based his opinion on a number of facts he considered important, including that defendant admitted to the jail classification personnel that he was a “Northerner,” defendant had gang

- related tattoos, Salazar Garcia was wearing a blue s hirt and had on a Dallas Cowboys hat that defendant may have
mistook for an affiliation with the S u r e n ͂ o gang, defendant committed the crime in S u r e n ͂ o territory and shouted out “Puro Norte,” during the attack, which Pisturino stated was
consistent with de fendant broadcasting “that he was a gang member,” and was giving
credit to the N o r t e n

͂ o gang for the crime.
D efendant argues that the gang expert’s conclusion that defendant’s attack on
Salazar Garcia was gang related was speculative, and rested on nothin g more than the
commission of the crime by a gang member, which is insufficient evidence to support a gang enhancement as noted in both People v. Ochoa (2009) 179 Cal.App. 4th 650, 662

- 663 ( Ochoa ) , and People v. Rios (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 542, 573

- 574 ( Rio s )

. We find both cases factually distinguishable from the present case. The defendant in Ochoa walked up to a person p arked in a fast food restaurant’ s parking lot, pointed a shotgun at15

him, dem anded the car, and drove off. ( Ochoa, supra, at p. 653.) Th e defendant in Rios was stopped in a stolen car, with an unregist ered firearm beneath the driver’ s seat. ( Rios , supra , at pp. 547

- 548.) In both cases, the circu mstances of the crimes were either unknown or unaccompanied by any reference to the defendant’ s gang affiliation, and the
theft of the cars was not followed by the car’ s use for gang purposes; in each case, the gang expert’ s opinion that the car theft s was gang related was accordingly too speculative to support a gang enhancement in the absence of f urther evidence tying the car theft to a

gang

. ( Ochoa, surpa, at pp. 659

- 663 ; Rios , supra, at pp. 573

- 575.) This case is different. Although defendant was alone when he attacked Salazar Garcia, he made his victim aware of his gang affiliation by saying “Puro Norte” immediately preceding the attack. In addition, the fact that defendant committed his crime in S u r e n ͂ o territory and identified
himself as Nor t e n

͂ o at th e time demonstrates he acted with the specific intent of furthering
the N o r t e n ͂ o gang. Un like Ochoa and Rios , t he link between the crime and gang activi ty
in this case is not speculative.
In addition to Ochoa and Rios , defendant relies on In re Frank S . (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1192 ( Frank S .) to support his claim that the gang expert’s testimo ny was speculative. In Frank S ., the minor was stopped by police after he ran a red light on his bicycle. He gave a false name, and the officer found a concealed knife, a bindle of methamphetamine, and a red bandana in the minor’s possession. ( Frank S. , supra , at
p. 1195.) The minor admitted that he carried the knife to protect himself against “ ‘Southerners,’ ” as he was allied with northern street gangs. ( Ibid .) A gang expert was permitted to testify that the minor’s possession of the knife benefitte d the gang because

“ ‘it helps provide them protection should they be assaulted by rival gang members.’ ” ( Frank S ., supra , at p. 1199.) The court deemed this improper because, in its view, the expert opinion was not supported by any other evidence. “The prosecution did not present any evidence that the minor was in gang territory, had gang members with him, or had any reason to expect to use the knife in a gang

- related offense.” ( Ibid .)16

Frank S . is readily distinguishable. Here, defendant, a N o r t e n ͂ o , entered S u r e n

͂ o territory armed with a knife. When he attacked Salazar Garcia, he said “Puro Norte,” identifying his gang affiliation, and declaring to the S u r e n ͂ o neighborhood of his presence in “enemy territory.” Thi s evidence provided sufficient supp ort for the gang expert’s testimony that the attack was committed for the benefit of the N o r t e n ͂ o gang. We find substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding that defendant attempted
to kill Salazar Garcia for the benefit of the N o r t e n ͂ o gang and w ith the specific intent to promote criminal conduct by the N o r t e n ͂ o s. Jury Instruction

- Voluntary Intoxication Defendant asserts the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on voluntary
intoxication as it relates to imperfect self defense.
The trial court did instruct with the CALCRIM No. 625 about voluntary
intoxication as follows: “You may consider evidence , if any, of the defendant’s voluntary intoxication only in a limited way. You may consider that evidence only in deciding whether the de fendant acted with an intent to kill, or the defendant acted with deliberation and premeditation, or the defendant was unconscious when he acted. [¶] A person is voluntarily intoxicated if he or she becomes intoxicated by willingly using any intoxicating drug, drink, or other substance knowing that it could produce an intoxicating effect, or willingly assuming the risk of that effect.” Defendant asserts this instruction was insufficient, because it specifically prohibited the jury from using evidence of voluntary intoxication for any purpose other than assessing whether defendant had the intent to kill or acted with premedication or deliberation. Defendant further argues that the theory of his case was that he was acting
with the unreasonable belief in t he need to use deadly force to defend himself, and that this unreasonable belief was as a result of voluntary intoxication. We note defendant’s argument of instructional error is waived for the purpose of this appeal. W hile defendant requested the instr uction at trial, defense counsel did not17

ask the court to modify CALCRIM No. 625 to inform the ju ry that voluntary intoxication

c ould be consid ered when deciding if defendant had an actual, but unreasonable belief
that harm was imminent in the context of h is claim of imperfect self defense. CALCRIM No. 625 as stated to the jury in this case is a correct statement of the law. “A trial court has no sua sp onte duty to revise or improve upon an accurate statement of law without a request from counsel [citatio n ], and failure to request clarifi cation of an otherwise correct
instruction forfeits the claim of error for purposes of appeal. [ Citations.]” ( People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 638.) However, even if we were to deem defendant’s argument cognizable o n appeal, we find any instructional error as to voluntary intoxication implicating his claim of imperfect self

- defense harmless under both People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, and the more stringent standard set forth in Chapman v. California (1967) 38 6 U.S. 18. Based on the evidence at trial, if so instructed, the jury could not have concluded that defendant acted with imperfect self

- defense because he was intoxicated. The only
evidence that defendant was intoxicated came from defendant’s own testimo ny at trial, and by all accounts, defendant was not a believable witness, having lied during testimony and during the investigation of the crime. Defendant did n ot provide a corr oborating witness from the barbeque he attended immediately before the crime who could have
testified about how much defendant drank that night or his d runken condition when he
left. W hen interviewed by Detective He dl e y following the attack and given the opportunity to tell his side of the story, defendant did not mention being in toxicated at the
time of the crime. Moreover, defendant’s acts following the crime of throwing away his bloody clothes and hiding with his fellow gang members demonstrates a consciousness of guilt that is inconsistent with an honest, but unreasonable beli ef that he needed to use force to defend himself from an imminent threat of harm. Finally, the verdict demonstrates that the jury did not believe that defendant’s intoxication prevented him from premeditating and deliberating in forming the intent to kill Salazar Garcia.18

Here, the scant evidence that defendant was intoxicated, coupled with the fact that the jury found that defendant acted with premeditation and deliberation in attempting to kill Salazar Garcia, and that he was not so drunk as to negate th at intent, demonstrate that any instructional error regarding the impact of voluntary intoxication o n a claim of imperfect self

- defense was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. ( Chapman v. California , supra, 38 6 U.S. 18.)
D ISPOSITION The judgmen t is affirmed.19 ______________________________________

RUSHING , P.J.

WE CONCUR:

____________________________________ ELIA, J.

___________________________________ WALSH, J. *

* Judge of the Santa Clara County Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.