Is there any case law in which a defendant has been found to be in breach of the criminal code by failing to comply with the statutory requirement that a pattern of criminal gang activity be gang related?

Defendants argue, however, that because the statute at issue is a penal statute, it must be construed in favor of defendants, necessitating reading into the statute the requirement that the predicate offenses comprising the statutorily required "pattern of criminal gang activity" be gang related. Defendants are wrong. Although it is the policy of this state to have courts construe penal laws as favorably to criminal defendants as reasonably permitted by the statutory language and circumstances of the application of the particular law at issue (People v. Bland (1995) 10 Cal.4th 991, 1001, 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 77, 898 P.2d 391; People v. Overstreet (1986) 42 Cal.3d 891, 896, 231 Cal.Rptr. 213, 726 P.2d 1288), that policy generally comes into play only when the language of the penal law "is susceptible of two constructions" (People v. Overstreet, supra, at p. 896, 231 Cal.Rptr. 213, 726 P.2d 1288), a situation not present here.