Opinion
F042177.
11-24-2003
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GREGORY ALEQUIN, Defendant and Appellant.
Robert Derham, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Stephen G. Herndon and Sean M. McCoy, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
THE COURT
A four-count information was filed charging defendant Gregory Alequin with robbery, assault with a deadly weapon (brass knuckles), possession of brass knuckles and misdemeanor vandalism. Gang enhancements pursuant to Penal Code section 186.22 were attached to the three felony counts. After jury trial, defendant was acquitted of robbery and assault with a deadly weapon (counts 1 and 2), and convicted of simple assault (lesser included offense to count 2), possessing brass knuckles and vandalism (counts 3 and 4). A true finding was returned on the gang enhancement attached to count 3. Defendant admitted a prior strike allegation. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of eight years imprisonment (three years for count 3, doubled, plus an additional two years for the gang enhancement).
Unless otherwise specified, all statutory references are to the Penal Code.
As his sole appellate issue, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting an element of the gang enhancement. We are unpersuaded and will affirm.
Facts pertinent to resolution of this issue will be set forth in our discussion of the point.
DISCUSSION
"[U]nder California statutory law the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of a sentence enhancement." (People v. Sengpadychith (2001) 26 Cal.4th 316, 325.) In addition to establishing other elements that are not disputed by defendant, to subject a defendant to the penal consequences of section 186.22 the People must prove that the underlying felony was "`committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang, with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1) and former subd. (c).)" (People v. Gardeley (1996) 14 Cal.4th 605, 617; People v. Duran (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1448, 1457.)
When considering the sufficiency of the evidence, "we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine `"whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." [Citation.] [Citations.] `We draw all reasonable inferences in support of the judgment. [Citation.] [Citations.] Reversal is not warranted unless it appears `"that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the conviction]." [Citation.] [Citation.]" (People v. Duran, supra , 97 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1456-1457.)
Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that his possession of brass knuckles was undertaken for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with Northside Visalia (NSV), the criminal street gang to which he belonged. This argument fails because defendant has erroneously considered Officer Torress expert testimony in isolation from the rest of the evidence in the record. As will be explained below, when the entirety of the record is considered, there is ample evidence establishing that defendant possessed the brass knuckles to benefit NSV.
First, possessing brass knuckles is a necessary precursor to using them. Officer Torres testified that NSV is known for commission of assaults, as well as other offenses. The use of brass knuckles during an assault would increase both the force of the assailants blows and the likelihood of seriously injuring the victim. In turn, this would enhance the reputation of NSV and further the gangs ability to intimidate and prey upon others.
Second, the evidence shows that defendant possessed the brass knuckles at the same time he made remarks and engaged in criminal conduct intended to prove NSVs superiority. NSV members are "nortenos" (Northern California Hispanic gang members). The term "scraps" is a derogatory term disparaging "surenos" (Southern California Hispanic street gang members). Detective Torres opined that a person who called another person a "scrap" while making his own gang identification known would be attempting to assert his gangs superiority. Reeves testified that when he and Sanchez rode past defendant, defendant yelled out "Northside Visa" and "fucking scraps." Defendant followed them on his bicycle and forced them to halt. Defendant was agitated and called Reeves a "scrap" again before hitting him. Reeves testified that as defendant approached him, he saw the brass knuckles. Later, when Reevess uncle, David Torrez, attempted to retrieve Reevess bicycle, he saw that defendant was holding brass knuckles in one hand and he had a crowbar tucked in his pants. Defendant refused to return the bicycle, and disparaged Reeves as a "fucking scrap." As Torrez left, defendant broke the back window of defendants truck. Finally, defendant still possessed the brass knuckles when he was questioned by police. Defendant admitted to an officer that he had chased Reeves and Sanchez to "protect his own." Defendants right hand was cut and he was bleeding profusely. Thus, the record demonstrates that on all of the occasions during which defendant asserted NSVs superiority by either word or deed, he possessed brass knuckles.
Although the jury did not convict defendant of assault with a deadly weapon, this does not mean that the jury determined that defendant did not use the brass knuckles when he hit Reeves. Rather, the jury simply could have concluded that the brass knuckles were not a deadly weapon.
For these reasons, we conclude that the jury reasonably could have determined that defendant possessed the brass knuckles in order to assist him in conduct (namely, threats and assaults) promoting NSVs reputation. Thus, defendant possessed the brass knuckles to benefit NSV. Accordingly, we reject defendants challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting this element of the section 186.22 enhancement allegation.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.