Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. SF092081D
RAYE, J.A jury found defendant Veasna Sith guilty of robbery (Pen. Code, § 212.5, subd. (a)), residential burglary (§ 459), and assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)). The jury also found defendant had committed each of those crimes for the benefit of a gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) and with the personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)), and further found him guilty of active participation in a street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a)).
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
The trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of nine years for the robbery, plus 10 years each for the gang and firearm enhancements, and eight months for participating in a gang. The court sentenced defendant to concurrent midterms on the burglary and assault counts, resulting in a total aggregate term of 29 years eight months.
On appeal, defendant contends there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that he committed the offenses for the benefit of a gang. He also contends, and the People concede, that the sentences for burglary and assault with a firearm must be stayed pursuant to section 654. We shall modify the judgment to stay the sentences for burglary and assault, and otherwise affirm.
BACKGROUND
On May 7, 2004, Myrna Galvez, a Southeast Asian Islander, went to an Asian grocery store to do some shopping. While shopping, she noticed three Asian or Islander teenagers. At one point, they struck her cart and made a “boom” sound. Later, one of the teenagers said “boom,” and one of them pointed his hand at her with his finger extended. One of the other teenagers wore a blue bandana.
As Galvez drove home, she noticed the teenagers following her in a silver car. When she stopped in front of her house, they passed by. She parked in the garage and began unloading her car. She took two bags of groceries and her purse into the house and returned to the car for more.
As she was about to get another bag of groceries, one of the three teenagers came up, went into her house, and walked out with her purse. As Galvez grabbed her purse and struggled to take it back, another of the teenagers came into the garage, stuck a gun to her head, and told her to stop. Galvez released her purse and the teenagers left.
Galvez identified defendant as the male with the gun. She also identified the silver car. She stated that the driver, who wore a blue bandana, always remained in the car.
Officer Paul Gutierrez of the Stockton City Police specializes in Asian criminal street gangs. He testified that the Loc Town Crips is a criminal street gang active in the area where defendant lived. The gang has about 145 members and is associated with the color blue. Defendant was an active member of the gang, as were his codefendants. Defendant had had numerous police contacts and had been documented with the gang on 14 occasions, admitting membership in the gang on seven of those occasions. Defendant also had “Loc Town” tattooed on his back.
Officer Gutierrez testified that the Loc Town Crips support themselves by selling narcotics, selling guns, and committing robberies. Defendant’s gang targets Southeast Asian women because the gang members believe the women distrust banks and often carry large amounts of cash. They also believe the women will not cooperate with police, and generally they are too intimidated to testify against the gang members. Because these women are susceptible to intimidation by the gang and will not come forward to law enforcement, the gang members are able to continue committing their crimes.
DISCUSSION
I
Defendant contends there is insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that he committed the offenses with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in criminal conduct by gang members so as to support the section 186.22, subd. (b)(1) gang enhancement. We disagree.
Section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1) provides, in part, that “any person who is convicted of a felony 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, shall, upon conviction of that felony, in addition and consecutive to the punishment prescribed for the felony or attempted felony of which he or she has been convicted, be punished as [specified].” (Italics added.)
Defendant does not deny that the Loc Town Crips are a criminal street gang, that he is a member of that gang, or that he and his fellow gang members, as a group, robbed and assaulted Myrna Galvez. He argues, however, that there was no evidence that the robbery and assault were committed with “the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any... criminal conduct by [Loc Town Crips] gang members.” The evidence, however, was sufficient for the jury to conclude to the contrary.
Officer Gutierrez testified that the Loc Town Crips, of which defendant is a member, support themselves by, inter alia, committing robberies. Defendant’s gang targets Southeast Asian women because they believe the women distrust banks and often carry large amounts of cash. These women, once victimized, are susceptible to intimidation by the gang and often will not come forward to law enforcement. Gutierrez explained that by targeting these women who are fearful of reporting crimes, the gang members are able to continue committing their crimes, thereby supporting the gang.
Defendant argues that he and his fellow gang members could have simply been committing a crime together -- not for any particular benefit to the gang. He points out that none of the teenagers mentioned the gang while they were committing the crime. But “‘reversal is not warranted merely because the circumstances might also be reasonably reconciled with a contrary finding.’” (People v. Gray (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 973, 984, quoting People v. Redmond (1969) 71 Cal.2d 745, 755.) And the victim need not have knowledge that a crime is gang related for it to qualify under the statute. Here, the evidence supports the jury’s conclusion that the crimes against Galvez were those that are commonly committed by the Loc Town Crips to support the gang.
We find the evidence sufficient to support the finding that defendant’s crimes were committed to support and promote his gang and its members’ continuing criminal conduct. We therefore need not address defendant’s reliance on Garcia v. Carey (9th Cir. 2005) 395 F.3d 1099 as standing for the proposition that the gang enhancement lacks sufficient evidence to support it if there is no evidence of specific intent to further criminal conduct by the gang other than the crime to which the enhancement is attached. We note, however, that this court has expressly rejected Garcia’s reading of California law. (People v. Hill (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 770, 774.)
II
Defendant asserts he was improperly sentenced to concurrent sentences for the burglary and assault with a firearm convictions. He contends these sentences constitute double punishment under section 654. The Attorney General appropriately concedes that the burglary and assault were not part of a separate course of conduct from the robbery and thus cannot be the basis for separate sentences. (See People v. Mustafaa (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1312.) Accordingly, we will stay the sentences for burglary and assault with a firearm (§§ 459, 245, subd. (a)(2)) pursuant to section 654.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to stay the sentences for burglary and assault with a firearm (§§ 459, 245, subd. (a)(2)) pursuant to section 654. As modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment and to forward a certified copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur: NICHOLSON , Acting P. J., CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.