How has section 654 of the California Street Terrorism Act been interpreted in the context of a drive-by shooting?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from The People v. Duarte, G041195, No. 07WF0962 (Cal. App. 2010):

In People v. Herrera, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th 1456, "the defendant was charged with a course of criminal conduct involving two gang-related, drive-by shootings in which two people were injured. [Citation.]" (People v. Vu, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 1034.) The shootings were committed in retaliation against a rival gang who had shot

Page 3

at members of the defendant's gang. We held that "under section 186.22, subdivision (a) the defendant must necessarily have the intent and objective to actively participate in a criminal street gang. However, he does not need to have the intent to personally commit the particular felony (e.g., murder, robbery or assault) because the focus of the street terrorism statute is upon the defendant's objective to promote, further or assist the gang in its felonious conduct, irrespective of who actually commits the offense.... Hence, section 186.22, subdivision (a) requires a separate intent and objective from the underlying felony committed on behalf of the gang. The perpetrator of the underlying crime may thus possess 'two independent, even if simultaneous, objectives[,]' thereby precluding application of section 654. [Citation.]" (People v. Herrera, supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1467-1468, fn. omitted.) Because the evidence showed the defendant had separate intents to murder multiple victims (see id. at p. 1467 [the defendant "repeatedly shot a gun on two separate occasionsthe interval between the two being brief but distinctstriking cars, occupied apartments, and bystanders"] and to support his "gang's felonious conduct," we held section 654 did not bar punishment for both crimes (id. at p. 1468).

In People v. Ferraez, supra, 112 Cal.App.4th 925, where the defendant was convicted of possessing cocaine base for sale and street terrorism, I authored an opinion following Herrera. (Id. at p. 935.) The record there contained evidence the defendant possessed the drugs for sale with the separate intent to personally benefit and promote or assist the gang. (Ibid.)

Other Questions


How has section 654 of the California Street Terrorism Act been interpreted in the context of a drive-by shooting? (California, United States of America)
How has section 654 of the California Criminal Code been interpreted in the context of street terrorism? (California, United States of America)
Is a city's interpretation of a section of the California Civil Code interpreted in the context of an administrative agency's interpretation? (California, United States of America)
How have sections 424, subdivision 1 and 425 of the California Criminal Code been interpreted in the context of Section 424(1) of the Criminal Code? (California, United States of America)
How has section 654 of the California Criminal Code been interpreted in the context of Section 654(1) of the Criminal Code? (California, United States of America)
Does section 654 of the California Criminal Code allow a defendant to be convicted of two counts of street terrorism and a charge of attempted murder as a single drive-by shooting? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted section 1016.5 of the California Immigration Code and how have the courts interpreted the word 'court' in that section? (California, United States of America)
How has Section 654 of the California Penal Code been interpreted and interpreted in the context of a criminal case? (California, United States of America)
How has the California Supreme Court interpreted statutory interpretation in the context of the California Family Law Act? (California, United States of America)
Does section 654 of the California Criminal Code allow a defendant to be convicted of a single charge of street terrorism and a separate charge of attempted murder for a single drive-by shooting? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.