Court Opinion

ID: 9386833
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-13 19:02:43.188587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:08.910533
License: Public Domain

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                         NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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,                                                                   H050346
                                                                                          (Monterey County
              Petitioner,                                                                  Super. Ct. No. 21CR009067)
              v.
 SUPERIOR COURT OF MONTEREY COUNTY,
              Respondent;
 THE PEOPLE,
              Real Party in Interest.

 DAVID IRETA REYES,                                                                        H050366
                                                                                          (Monterey County
              Petitioner,                                                                  Super. Ct. No. 21CR009066)
              v.
 SUPERIOR COURT OF MONTEREY COUNTY,
              Respondent;
 THE PEOPLE,
              Real Party in Interest.

          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.
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

                                              2
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,

                                              3
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.

                                              4
                                       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

                                               5
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

                                              6
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.

                                              7
                                    ___________________________________
                                               Wilson, J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________________
           Bamattre-Manoukian, Acting P.J.

______________________________________
                 Grover, J.

Garcia-Fuentes v. Superior Court
H050346

Reyes v. Superior Court
H050366