32 Cited authorities

People v. Superior Court (Romero)
13 Cal.4th 497 (Cal. 1996) Cited 6,432 times
Holding that the sentencing court has the power under the Three Strikes Law to dismiss one or more prior “strikes” in the interest of justice
People v. Gardeley
14 Cal.4th 605 (Cal. 1996) Cited 2,120 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding it proper for prosecutor to give gang expert "a `hypothetical based on the facts of the assault in this case on Edward Bruno by three Family Crip members, ask[ing] [gang expert] if in his expert opinion an attack as described would be "gang-related activity"
People v. Hernandez
33 Cal.4th 1040 (Cal. 2004) Cited 1,353 times
Holding the prosecution may utilize expert testimony about gang culture and habits to establish the elements of a gang allegation
People v. Sengpadychith
26 Cal.4th 316 (Cal. 2001) Cited 1,089 times
Holding that an enumerated crime is a gang's "primary" activity when it is one of the gang's "'chief' or 'principal' occupations"
Arias v. Superior Court (Angelo Dairy)
46 Cal.4th 969 (Cal. 2009) Cited 604 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that proof of a Labor Code violation is a prerequisite to recovery of PAGA penalties
People v. Mendoza
23 Cal.4th 896 (Cal. 2000) Cited 472 times
In People v. Mendoza (2000) 23 Cal.4th 896, 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 431, 4 P.3d 265 (Mendoza), a jury convicted the defendants of murder without specifying the degree but also found true the special circumstance that it was committed during a robbery.
People v. Quang Minh Tran
51 Cal.4th 1040 (Cal. 2011) Cited 336 times
Rejecting a similar argument; stating that "the prosecution cannot be compelled to ' "present its case in the sanitized fashion suggested by the defense." '"
In re Greg F.
55 Cal.4th 393 (Cal. 2012) Cited 315 times
Finding court was within discretion to dismiss later 602 petition, after admissions entered, in order to permit more serious commitment based on later filed probation violation alleging same acts
People v. Coronado
12 Cal.4th 145 (Cal. 1995) Cited 397 times
Finding that "[t]he 'special over the general' " rule applied to compare a sentence enhancement with a substantive offense
People v. Briceno
34 Cal.4th 451 (Cal. 2004) Cited 284 times
Concluding section 1192.7, subdivision (c)'s reference to a felony “violation” of section 186.22 encompassed sentence enhancements under section 186.22, subdivision (b), and not just the felony “offense” of section 186.22

PEOPLE v. FUENTES

32 Cited authorities

Holding that the sentencing court has the power under the Three Strikes Law to dismiss one or more prior “strikes” in the interest of justice

Holding it proper for prosecutor to give gang expert "a `hypothetical based on the facts of the assault in this case on Edward Bruno by three Family Crip members, ask[ing] [gang expert] if in his expert opinion an attack as described would be "gang-related activity"

Holding the prosecution may utilize expert testimony about gang culture and habits to establish the elements of a gang allegation

Holding that an enumerated crime is a gang's "primary" activity when it is one of the gang's "'chief' or 'principal' occupations"

Holding that proof of a Labor Code violation is a prerequisite to recovery of PAGA penalties

In People v. Mendoza (2000) 23 Cal.4th 896, 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 431, 4 P.3d 265 (Mendoza), a jury convicted the defendants of murder without specifying the degree but also found true the special circumstance that it was committed during a robbery.

Rejecting a similar argument; stating that "the prosecution cannot be compelled to ' "present its case in the sanitized fashion suggested by the defense." '"

Finding court was within discretion to dismiss later 602 petition, after admissions entered, in order to permit more serious commitment based on later filed probation violation alleging same acts

Finding that "[t]he 'special over the general' " rule applied to compare a sentence enhancement with a substantive offense

Concluding section 1192.7, subdivision (c)'s reference to a felony “violation” of section 186.22 encompassed sentence enhancements under section 186.22, subdivision (b), and not just the felony “offense” of section 186.22