Court Opinion

ID: 9947392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-04 19:02:39.179744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:24.636184
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/4/24 P. v. Nevarez CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                     (Sacramento)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C097543

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Super. Ct. No. 19FE020709)

           v.                                                                      ORDER MODIFYING
                                                                                  OPINION AND DENYING
 ERICK NEVAREZ,                                                                        REHEARING

                    Defendant and Appellant.                                            [NO CHANGE IN
                                                                                          JUDGMENT]

THE COURT:

         It is ordered that the opinion filed in this case on February 9, 2024, be modified as
follows:
         1.        On page 9, at the end of the first full paragraph ending “was more than
                   reputational,” add as footnote 2 the following footnote:

                   2 Our Supreme Court’s recent decision in People v. Clark (Feb. 22,

         2024, S275746) __ Cal.5th __ [2024 Cal. LEXIS 774] does not assist
         defendant. In Clark, our Supreme Court held the prosecution must

                                                             1
demonstrate that all predicate offenses shared a nexus to the collective
nature of the gang. (Id. at p. __ [2024 Cal. LEXIS 774 at p. 25].) Our
Supreme Court further held this showing could be made by linking the
predicate offense to the organizational structure of the gang, to the gang’s
primary activities, or to the common goals or principles of the gang. (Id.
at p. __ [2024 Cal. LEXIS 774 at p. 25].)
       The first predicate offense involved a Varrio Gardenland gang
member robbing a drug dealer, who dealt drugs in Varrio Gardenland
territory without paying taxes to the Varrio Gardenland gang. Our
Supreme Court pointed to a predicate offense involving similar facts as
sufficient to demonstrate a nexus to the organizational structure of the
gang. (People v. Clark, supra, __ Cal.5th at pp. __ [2024 Cal. LEXIS 774
at pp. 15, 27].) Both predicate offenses involved Varrio Gardenland gang
members committing robberies, which Detective Sample testified was a
primary activity of the Varrio Gardenland gang. Our Supreme Court
pointed to the commission of the gang’s primary activities as an example
of when predicate offenses sufficiently demonstrate a nexus to the
collective nature of the gang. (Id. at pp. __ [2024 Cal. LEXIS 774 at
pp. 25, 26].) Accordingly, sufficient evidence supported defendant’s gang
enhancement.

There is no change in the judgment.
Defendant’s petition for rehearing is denied.

                                      2
BY THE COURT:

/s/
ROBIE, Acting P. J.

/s/
DUARTE, J.

/s/
KRAUSE, J.

                      3
Filed 2/9/24 P. v. Nevarez CA3 (unmodified opinion)
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                     (Sacramento)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C097543

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Super. Ct. No. 19FE020709)

           v.

 ERICK NEVAREZ,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

          Defendant Erick Nevarez was convicted of premeditated attempted murder for the
benefit of a criminal street gang. On appeal, he contends (1) insufficient evidence
supports the predicate offenses used to prove the gang enhancement and (2) his counsel
was ineffective for failing to object to hearsay testimony given by the gang expert. We
affirm.

                                                             1
                   FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       Defendant’s appeal pertains to the evidence regarding the predicate offenses
supporting the gang enhancement. We thus do not recite facts relevant only to the
attempted murder conviction and nongang-related allegations.
       During trial on defendant’s attempted murder offense and nongang-related
allegations, defendant admitted to being a member of the Varrio Gardenland gang, a
subset of the Norteño criminal street gang, at the time of the offense. Subsequently, the
jury found defendant guilty of attempted murder and found true allegations that he acted
with premeditation, used a deadly weapon, and inflicted great bodily injury. Defendant
contemplated admitting the remaining gang allegation; specifically, that he committed the
attempted murder for the benefit of the Varrio Gardenland Norteño criminal street gang.
Defendant decided, however, to proceed with a court trial on the gang allegation to
preserve future appellate rights regarding potential legislative changes. In light of
proceeding with a court trial, defense counsel waived the applicability of hearsay
restrictions to the gang expert’s testimony, such as those announced in People v. Sanchez
(2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, including to the expert’s testimony that was relevant to “the
history of the gang, including the predicate offenses.” Counsel indicated he knew the
prosecution was capable of calling qualified witnesses to testify about the predicate
offenses and that he was the attorney on one of the cases.
       The prosecution called Sacramento Police Detective John Sample as its gang
expert. Detective Sample testified about the Norteño criminal street gang; specifically,
that all subsets of the Norteño gang share similar objectives and philosophies, including
maintaining their neighborhoods free of rival gang members. Further, “[r]espect is very
important,” as is loyalty and family. Typically, Norteño gang members arm themselves
with firearms, but Detective Sample has seen them use baseball bats, sticks, knives, brass
knuckles, and vehicles as weapons. Primary activities of the Norteño gang are drug sales,
illegal weapons possession, and the commission of robberies, shootings, and murders.

                                             2
       Norteño gang members identify themselves as members of the gang by wearing
red clothing and exhibiting tattoos demonstrating allegiance to the gang. In some cases,
members also wear a Mongolian style haircut. It is common to see Norteño gang
members use hand signs and graffiti to demonstrate allegiance to the gang, and also
showcase their allegiance on social media.
       The Norteño gang, and its rival the Sureño gang, originated in the California
prison system. The structure for the gang is dictated by the members serving time in
prison while younger members “put in work” through gang subsets in various
neighborhoods, which is the case in Sacramento. One Sacramento Norteño subset is
Varrio Gardenland. Varrio Gardenland members, like Norteño gang members, identify
with the color red. Varrio Gardenland members exhibit hand signs and tattoos specific to
their subset and also specific to the larger Norteño gang. Another Norteño subset is the
Varrio Diamond Sacramento.
       Varrio Gardenland and Varrio Diamond Sacramento are allies and commit crimes
together. Both subsets have a “primary allegiance” to the Norteño umbrella gang, which
is why members of both subsets wear red clothing and exhibit the letter “N” and number
14 in tattoos or hand signs.
       Detective Sample testified to the first predicate offense as occurring on May 18,
2016, and involving Justin J. and Terry E. as the perpetrators of a robbery. At the time,
Terry was a Varrio Gardenland gang member and Justin was a Varrio Diamond
Sacramento gang member. Terry had a Norteño gang tattoo on his face and a Varrio
Gardenland tattoo on his chest. He admitted to being a Varrio Gardenland gang member
and had been known to associate with other Varrio Gardenland gang members. Justin
had multiple tattoos showing his allegiance to the Varrio Diamond Sacramento subset, as
well as the Norteño umbrella gang.
       Before the robbery, Justin spoke to the victim, a known Norteño drug dealer who
had moved to Varrio Gardenland territory, about paying “taxes” on his drug dealings to

                                             3
the Norteño gang structure. Following the conversation, Justin and Terry beat him and
robbed him of $15,000. In Detective Sample’s opinion, Justin and Terry robbed the
victim for the financial benefit of the gang, even though evidence also suggested that
Justin may have robbed the victim because he was dealing drugs outside Justin’s young
daughter’s home.
       The second predicate offense Detective Sample testified to occurred on May 14,
2018, and involved Esteban R. and Mario G., who both had previously admitted to being
Varrio Gardenland gang members. Esteban and Mario also had tattoos demonstrating
loyalty to Varrio Gardenland, and Mario had tattoos on his neck and wrist signifying
loyalty to the Norteño umbrella gang. Esteban wore the Mongolian hairstyle typical of
Norteño gang members and was known to associate with other Varrio Gardenland gang
members. Mario had been previously contacted by police officers while wearing red
clothing and had admitted membership in the Varrio Gardenland subset.
       In May of 2018, Esteban, Mario, and another Varrio Gardenland gang member
beat up a victim and took his belongings, including his wallet, while asking the victim if
he knew where he was located. In Detective Sample’s opinion, the offense occurred for
the benefit of a criminal street gang because of the group nature of the assault and the
language used during the assault. Detective Sample further believed the robbery was
committed to financially benefit the gang because the members who committed the
offense were likely to keep the money and property they took from the victim.
       Detective Sample then extensively testified to defendant’s gang ties and the crime
he committed, ultimately testifying to his opinion that defendant committed the attempted
murder of a perceived rival gang member for the benefit of a criminal street gang.
       Following Detective Sample’s testimony, the parties rested and submitted the
matter to the trial court without argument. The trial court found that the prosecution met
its burden in proving defendant committed the attempted murder for the benefit of a

                                             4
criminal street gang, namely the Varrio Gardenland Norteños as alleged in the
information.
       At defendant’s sentencing hearing, the trial court struck the great bodily injury
enhancement and the weapons enhancement, leaving only the gang enhancement. The
trial court sentenced defendant to a total of 15 years to life in prison.
       Defendant appeals.
                                        DISCUSSION
                                               I
                      Sufficient Evidence Supports The Trial Court’s
                         True Finding On The Gang Enhancement
       “In assessing a claim of insufficiency of evidence, the reviewing court’s task is to
review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether
it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of
solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt.” (People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 11.) “ ‘An appellate court
must accept logical inferences that the [trier of fact] might have drawn from the evidence
even if the court would have concluded otherwise.’ ” (People v. Halvorsen (2007)
42 Cal.4th 379, 419.) Before a verdict may be set aside for insufficiency of the evidence,
a party must demonstrate “ ‘that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient
substantial evidence to support [the conviction].’ ” (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th
297, 331.) Reviewing courts must consider all the evidence admitted at trial, even if
erroneously admitted, to establish whether there was substantial evidence. (Lockhart v.
Nelson (1988) 488 U.S. 33, 39-42.) “[T]he sufficiency of the evidence to support an
enhancement” is reviewed “using the same standard . . . appl[ied] to a conviction.”
(People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 806.)

                                               5
       To prove a Penal Code1 section 186.22, subdivision (b) allegation, the prosecution
must establish, among other things, the existence of “an ongoing, organized association
or group of three or more persons, whether formal or informal” that has “as one of its
primary activities the commission of one or more of the criminal acts enumerated in
subdivision (e) . . . and whose members collectively engage in, or have engaged in, a
pattern of criminal gang activity.” (§ 186.22, subd. (f).) “ ‘[P]attern of criminal gang
activity’ means the commission of . . . two or more of the following offenses, provided
[among other things] . . . the offenses were committed on separate occasions or by two or
more members, the offenses commonly benefited a criminal street gang, and the common
benefit from the offenses is more than reputational.” (§ 186.22, subd. (e)(1).) “[B]enefit,
promote, further, or assist means to provide a common benefit to members of a gang
where the common benefit is more than reputational.” (§ 186.22, subd. (g).)
                                             A
                 The Prosecution Demonstrated A Single Criminal Street
                         Gang Committed The Predicate Offenses
       Defendant argues the prosecution failed to prove the predicate offenses were
committed by members of the same criminal street gang as required by People v. Prunty
(2015) 62 Cal.4th 59. Defendant focuses on whether the prosecution proved an ongoing
organizational relationship between the Varrio Gardenland subset and the Varrio
Diamond Sacramento subset, and further whether those subsets had an organizational
relationship to the Norteño umbrella gang. In a related argument, defendant argues that,
because of the prosecution’s failure to show an organizational relationship under Prunty,
the prosecution also failed to show “the predicate offenses were collectively committed

1      Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                             6
by members of the” Norteño gang. (Italics added.) Defendant’s reliance on Prunty is
misplaced.
        In Prunty, our Supreme Court held: “[W]here the prosecution’s case positing the
existence of a single ‘criminal street gang’ for purposes of section 186.22[, subdivision
](f) turns on the existence and conduct of one or more gang subsets, then the prosecution
must show some associational or organizational connection uniting those subsets.”
(People v. Prunty, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 71.) “Prunty also explained, however, that this
holding is inapplicable ‘when a defendant commits a crime to benefit a particular subset,
and the prosecution can show that the subset in question satisfies the primary activities
and predicate offense requirements, [because] there will be no need to link together the
activities of various alleged cliques.’ ” (People v. Tovar (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 750,
758.)
        Here, the prosecution did not allege that defendant committed his offense for the
benefit of the Norteño gang, which exists based on the conduct of subsets, like the two
subsets here—Varrio Gardenland and Varrio Diamond Sacramento. Instead, the
prosecution alleged defendant committed his offense for the benefit of the Varrio
Gardenland subset. Because the allegation was specific to the subset gang, which did not
turn on the existence and conduct of one or more subsets, the prosecution was not
required to show an organizational link between Varrio Gardenland and Varrio Diamond
Sacramento or the Norteño umbrella gang. Accordingly, Prunty is inapplicable and does
not provide a basis for us to conclude the gang enhancement is not supported by
substantial evidence.
        In reply, defendant argues that, if the gang enhancement was found true based on
defendant’s conduct benefitting the Varrio Gardenland gang, then insufficient evidence
supported a finding defendant acted to benefit Varrio Gardenland because the evidence
demonstrated he committed the offense to benefit the Norteño umbrella gang. The
People addressed this issue in their respondent’s brief. We disagree with defendant.

                                             7
       Like the defendant in Tovar, a case defendant relies on, defendant admitted he was
a member of a Norteño subset—Varrio Gardenland—at the time he committed the
offense. This testimony “permitted the inference that [defendant] intended to benefit [his
Norteño subset] in particular.” (People v. Tovar, supra, 10 Cal.App.5th at p. 759.)
“Prunty observed that the ‘ample evidence’ in that case that the defendant claimed to be a
member of a specific subset ‘was likely sufficient for the jury to infer that [the defendant]
intended to benefit that group.’ ” (Ibid.) While dicta, “ ‘Supreme Court dicta generally
should be followed, particularly where the comments reflect the court’s considered
reasoning.’ ” (Ibid.) Thus, we reject defendant’s claim that insufficient evidence
demonstrated he acted to benefit Varrio Gardenland.
                                              B
               The Prosecution Demonstrated The Predicate Offenses Were
           Committed To Confer A Benefit That Was More Than Reputational
       Defendant contends the prosecution failed to demonstrate the predicate offenses
benefited the Norteño criminal street gang in a way that was more than reputational. We
note again that the prosecution did not need to prove the predicate offenses were
committed to benefit the Norteño gang because it was the Varrio Gardenland subset
defendant was alleged to have benefitted. (See People v. Tovar, supra, 10 Cal.App.5th at
p. 758.) We will construe defendant’s argument as one contending the evidence did not
sufficiently prove the predicate offenses benefited Varrio Gardenland beyond a
reputational benefit. The People addressed this argument in their respondent’s brief. We
disagree with defendant’s construed contention.
       Under section 186.22, “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.” (§ 186.22, subd. (g).)

                                              8
       Detective Sample’s testimony was sufficient to demonstrate the benefit was
financial, as opposed to merely reputational. Both predicate offenses involved taking
money from the victims in Varrio Gardenland territory. The first predicate offense dealt
specifically with gang culture, in that the victim did not pay taxes to the Norteño
umbrella gang from proceeds earned while drug dealing in Varrio Gardenland territory.
It is reasonable to infer that the first predicate offense was committed to maintain the
good standing of Varrio Gardenland within the larger Norteño structure and also for
Varrio Gardenland to financially benefit from the $15,000 taken, of which only a portion
was meant to benefit the larger Norteño gang through taxes. The second predicate
offense also involved the taking of money and property. Detective Sample testified that
if the money had not been recovered by officers that it would likely have gone to the
gang and the members who took it. Accordingly, sufficient evidence supports the trial
court’s finding that the benefit to Varrio Gardenland as a result of the predicate offenses
was more than reputational.
                                             II
       Counsel Was Not Ineffective For Failing To Object To Hearsay Testimony
       Defendant contends his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to hearsay
testimony under Sanchez. (People v. Sanchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th 665.) We disagree.
       “To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, [defendant] ‘must show that
counsel’s performance was deficient, and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense.’
[Citation.] On direct appeal, a finding of deficient performance is warranted where ‘(1)
the record affirmatively discloses counsel had no rational tactical purpose for the
challenged act or omission, (2) counsel was asked for a reason and failed to provide one,
or (3) there simply could be no satisfactory explanation.’ [Citation.] ‘[W]here counsel’s
trial tactics or strategic reasons for challenged decisions do not appear on the record, we
will not find ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal unless there could be no

                                             9
conceivable reason for counsel’s acts or omissions.’ ” (People v. Johnsen (2021)
10 Cal.5th 1116, 1165.)
       The record reflects that defendant’s counsel waived the requirements of Sanchez
because he was confident the prosecution could produce sufficient witnesses to testify to
the underlying facts. Counsel further indicated he was familiar with one of the predicate
offenses having served on the case. Additionally, counsel indicated the only reason
defendant was going forward with a court trial on his gang allegation, instead of
admitting it, was because defendant wanted to preserve his right to benefit from any
future change in the law. Based on these assertions, the record is sufficient to show
defense counsel had a tactical reason to waive application of Sanchez. Counsel opted to
save time and progress through the bifurcated trial, knowing the prosecution could call
additional and qualified witnesses to meet its burden. Since defendant’s interest was
merely in preserving future appellate rights, it was reasonable for counsel to make such a
waiver. Accordingly, counsel’s failure to object on Sanchez grounds was not ineffective.

                                            10
                                 DISPOSITION
     The judgment is affirmed.

                                          /s/
                                          ROBIE, Acting P. J.

We concur:

/s/
DUARTE, J.

/s/
KRAUSE, J.

                                     11