Filed 4/13/23 Garcia-Fuentes v. Superior Court 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 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

WILLIAM GARCIA-FUENTES,

Petitioner,

v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF MONTEREY COUNTY,

Respondent;

THE PEOPLE,

Real Party in Interest.

 H050346

 (Monterey County 

 Super. Ct. No. 21CR009067)

DAVID IRETA REYES,

Petitioner,

v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF MONTEREY COUNTY,

Respondent;

THE PEOPLE,

Real Party in Interest.

 H050366

 (Monterey County

 Super. Ct. No. 21CR009066)

Following a double murder in 2021, petitioners William Garcia-Fuentes and David 

Ireta Reyes were held to answer on 10 felony charges, with gang and weapons 

enhancements.

After the trial court denied petitioners’ motions to dismiss pursuant to Penal Code1

section 995, petitioners filed petitions for writ of prohibition in this court. Petitioners 

1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

assert the prosecution failed to prove the necessary elements of a criminal street gang, 

because they failed to establish “a pattern of criminal activity” under section 186.22 as 

modified by Assembly Bill No. 333 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.). Petitioners ask us to order 

the trial court to vacate its ruling on the motions and enter a new order setting aside the 

gang charges and gang enhancements.

We issued an order to show cause why the relief petitioners seek should not be 

granted. The People filed returns conceding that petitioners are entitled to relief. We 

accept the concession and will issue writs of prohibition restraining respondent court 

from taking any further action against petitioners based upon the gang charges and gang 

enhancements in the information and directing respondent court to vacate its order 

denying petitioners’ section 995 motions to set aside the information and enter a new 

order granting the motion, in part, with respect to the gang charges and gang 

enhancements.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

On February 24, 2022, a third amended complaint was filed charging petitioners

with two counts of murder (§ 187; counts 1 & 2), with the following enhancements: 

principal’s use of a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)), discharge of firearm in a gang case 

(§ 12022.53, subd. (c)), use of a firearm (§ 12022.53, subds. (d), (e)(1)), street terrorism

(§ 186.22, subd. (b)(5)), and the following special circumstances: gang murder (§ 190.2, 

subd. (a)(22)), and multiple murder (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)); count 1 also included an 

enhancement for murder to prevent testimony (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(10)); one count of 

criminal street gang conspiracy (§ 182.5; count 3), enhanced by principal’s use of a 

firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)), discharge of firearm in a gang case (§ 12022.53, 

subd. (c)), use of a firearm (§ 12022.53, subds. (d), (e)(1)), one count of shooting at an 

occupied motor vehicle (§ 246; count 4), enhanced by principal’s use of a firearm

(§ 12022.53, subds. (d), (e)(1)) and street terrorism (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1), (4)); four
3

counts of assault with a semi-automatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b); counts 5-8), enhanced 

by infliction of great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)), and street terrorism (§ 182, 

subd. (a)(1); count 9); and one count of conspiracy to commit murder (§ 186.22, 

subd. (a); count 10), enhanced by street terrorism (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1), (5)).

A preliminary hearing was conducted on February 24, 2022, and February 28, 

2022. The court held petitioners to answer on all charges and enhancements.

An information was filed containing the same allegations as set forth in the third 

amended complaint.

Petitioners each filed motions to dismiss the information pursuant to section 995. 

The trial court denied the motions in August 2022. 

In September 2022, petitioners filed timely petitions for writs of prohibition in this 

court. On November 17, 2022, this court issued a stay of further proceedings in the trial 

court and requested opposition from the People. The People filed opposition to the 

petitions. 

On December 22, 2022, this court issued an order to show cause why petitioners 

should not be granted the relief they request. The People filed a return conceding that 

petitioners are entitled to relief. 

B. Evidence presented at the preliminary examination

On October 24, 2021, at around 1:00 a.m., a group of eight friends were attending 

an outdoor concert in the City of Gonzales. The group came in two separate cars, one 

containing six people and the other containing two. An eyewitness identified as “MV-l” 

stated that he knew Reyes and Garcia-Fuentes and had socialized with them prior to the 

shooting. MV-l said that Reyes was known by his gang moniker “Bambi,” and 

Garcia-Fuentes was known as “Willy.” 

MV-1 saw Bambi and Willy approach the car containing six people and start

asking “where’s Fabian?” and “who’s Fabian?” While looking for Fabian, one of them 

said, “that’s him” or “that’s that fool there!” Immediately after they identified Fabian, 
4

Bambi pulled out a gun, took a small step back and started firing into the car, killing 

Fabian Ortega and Araceli Verar and injuring two others. MV-1 said that Fabian Ortega 

was associated with the Watsonville City Hall subset of the Norteño criminal street gang.

MV-l described Willy as acting like the “big homey” during the shooting and Bambi as 

“the little homey.” According to MV-1, the big homey was instigating the shooting by 

pushing the little homey into action. 

Another eyewitness identified as “MS-l” stated that before the shooting, he saw 

Reyes and Garcia-Fuentes talking about Fabian being a “snitch” and being “no good,”

saying things like “this fool is no good,” and “fuck that fool,” and “he’s a piece of shit.”

MS-1 said the two seemed to be working together, and when they found Fabian, Reyes 

shot into the car about five times. 

Detective Jesse Pinon was qualified as an expert on Norteño criminal street gangs 

in Monterey County. Detective Pinon testified that the Norteño gang in Monterey 

County has approximately 3,000 to 4,000 members and the Watsonville City Hall gang is 

a Norteño subset gang using the same signs and symbols as the larger gang. Detective 

Pinon said that members committing crimes could help the gang by making money and

creating fear in others.

Regarding the predicate crimes required under section 186.22, Detective Pinon 

testified about a robbery that Hector Camberos and Jose Amezcua committed in 2020, 

and that both men were active Norteño gang members. Detective Pinon also testified 

about a residential burglary that two other active Norteño gang members, Art Marquez 

and Jose Martinez, committed in 2018.

Detective Pinon testified about the crimes committed in this case. He said that the 

statement “this fool is no good,” “he’s a snitch,” “he’s a piece of shit” used by Reyes and 

Garcia-Fuentes when referring to Fabian showed that they thought Fabian was “no 

good,” and that “he is a snitch.” Detective Pinon testified that in his opinion, Reyes and 

Garcia-Fuentes killed Fabian because he had snitched on the Norteño gang. 
5

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

At a preliminary examination, a magistrate determines whether there is “sufficient 

cause” to believe a defendant is guilty of all offenses and enhancements charged. (§ 871; 

see § 872, subd. (a).) This is a threshold determination for allowing the prosecution to 

proceed to trial against the defendant on those allegations.

The mechanism for challenging a magistrate’s sufficient cause determination is a 

motion to set aside or dismiss under section 995. Denial of a section 995 motion is most 

appropriately challenged by a petition for writ of prohibition. (§ 999a; see Hudson v.

Superior Court (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 999, 1006.)

Because “following the denial of a section 995 motion, we review the preliminary 

hearing magistrate’s determination directly and disregard the judge’s section 995 ruling,” 

we must determine whether the evidence submitted at the preliminary hearing was 

sufficient to hold petitioner to answer on the gang enhancement allegations under

section 186.22 as amended by Assembly Bill No. 333. (See People v. Ramirez (2016) 

244 Cal.App.4th 800, 813.) 

B. Section 186.22 following Assembly Bill No. 333

“Assembly Bill No. 333 . . . amended section 186.22 by modifying the definitions 

of ‘pattern of criminal activity’ and ‘criminal street gang,’ and it clarified what is 

required to show an offense ‘benefit[s], promote[s], further[s], or assist[s]’ a criminal 

street gang.” (People v. Perez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 192, 206.) Section 186.22 now 

“ ‘requires proof of the following additional requirements with respect to predicate 

offenses: (1) the offenses must have “commonly benefited a criminal street gang” where 

the “common benefit . . . is more than reputational”; (2) the last predicate offense must 

have occurred within three years of the date of the currently charged offense; (3) the 

predicate offenses must be committed on separate occasions or by two or more gang 

members, as opposed to persons; and (4) the charged offense cannot be used as a 
6

predicate offense.’ ” (Perez, supra, at p. 206.) “With respect to common benefit, the 

new legislation explains: ‘[T]o benefit, promote, further, or assist means to provide a 

common benefit to members of a gang where the common benefit is more than 

reputational. Examples of a common benefit that are more than reputational may include, 

but are not limited to, financial gain or motivation, retaliation, targeting a perceived or 

actual gang rival, or intimidation or silencing of a potential current or previous witness or 

informant.’ ” (People v. Lopez (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 327, 345.)

At the preliminary examination in the present case, while the gang expert testified 

about predicate robbery and burglary offenses committed by known Norteño gang 

members, he did not opine how those predicate offenses benefitted the Norteño street 

gang in a manner that was “more than reputational.” (§ 186.22, subd. (g).) It appears 

from the record that the trial court inferred the benefit was more than reputational without 

any specific evidence to support that inference. 

We find the People’s concession in this case is well taken and agree that the proof 

submitted at the preliminary examination was insufficient to meet the pattern of criminal 

activity requirement of section 186.22 as amended by Assembly Bill No. 333. Therefore, 

the portion of the order holding petitioners to answer on the gang charges and gang 

enhancement allegations must be vacated. 

III. DISPOSITION

H050346

Let a peremptory writ of prohibition issue restraining respondent court from taking 

any further action against petitioner William Garcia-Fuentes based upon the gang charges 

and gang enhancements in the information in the above-entitled action and directing 

respondent court to vacate its August 25, 2022 order denying petitioner’s Penal Code 

section 995 motion to set aside the information and enter a new order granting the 

motion, in part, with respect to the gang charges and gang enhancements and dismissing 

those gang charges and gang enhancements in the information. This opinion is made 
7

final as to this court seven days from the date of filing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 

8.490(b)(2)(A).) Upon issuance of the remittitur, the temporary stay is vacated.

H050366

Let a peremptory writ of prohibition issue restraining respondent court from taking 

any further action against petitioner David Ireta Reyes based upon the gang charges and 

gang enhancements in the information in the above-entitled action and directing 

respondent court to vacate its August 25, 2022 order denying petitioner’s Penal Code 

section 995 motion to set aside the information and enter a new order granting the 

motion, in part, with respect to the gang charges and gang enhancements and dismissing 

those gang charges and gang enhancements in the information. This opinion is made 

final as to this court seven days from the date of filing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 

8.490(b)(2)(A).) Upon issuance of the remittitur, the temporary stay is vacated.
___________________________________

Wilson, J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________________

 Bamattre-Manoukian, Acting P.J.

______________________________________

Grover, J.

Garcia-Fuentes v. Superior Court

H050346

Reyes v. Superior Court

H050366