People v. Wandick CA5

Filed 11/4/26 P. v. Wandick CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, F087067 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. BF190036A, v. BF190036B) TAEVIYON WANDICK et al., ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND Defendants and Appellants. DENYING REHEARING [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on October 19, 2026, be modified in the following particulars: 1. On page 14, in the second sentence of the second full paragraph, the words “had recently been killed” are changed to “was killed approximately 18 months earlier” so the sentence reads: The day after the shooting, Orozco found, on Cecil’s account, a video paying homage to Williams, and to Cecil’s deceased brother Christian, another Country Boy Crips member who was killed approximately 18 months earlier.  2. On page 14, in the second full paragraph, after the sentence ending “by the Country Boy Crips” and before the sentencing beginning “William’s social media accounts” insert the following sentence: Williams’s Facebook account included a profile picture with the Camaro Williams was driving at the time of his death. 3. The paragraph commencing at the bottom of page 14 with “Williams had an identical twin” and ending at the top of page 15 with “Country Boy Crips” is modified to read as follows: Williams had an identical twin brother named Daleno or Daleon.7 Daleon was fatally shot in his residence on March 2, 2017. Daleon’s publicly accessible Facebook account also contained several posts indicating Country Boy Crips membership or association, particularly with the Watts and Lotus subset. Daleon also had a publicly accessible Instagram page with posts showing association with the Country Boy Crips and Watts and Lotus subset. Braughton opined that Daleon’s publicly accessible accounts could lead to Williams being perceived as a member or associate of the Country Boy Crips. There is no change to footnote 7. 4. On page 28, in the second full paragraph, after the third sentence ending “on the victim’s location,” add as footnote 12 the following footnote, which will require renumbering of all subsequent footnotes: 12 Because the statute is not susceptible to the construction Wandick suggests, we do not address his argument regarding the rule of lenity. (See People v. Moyer (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 999, 1015 [“When a statute defining a crime or punishment is susceptible of two interpretations of roughly equal plausibility, the rule of lenity requires adoption of the interpretation more favorable to the defendant.”].) 5. On page 40, the eighth sentence of the full paragraph under the subheading “2. Analysis” the words “earlier in the year” are changed to “approximately 18 months prior” so the sentence reads: After the shooting, Williams was memorialized, along with a Country Boy Crips member or associate who was murdered approximately 18 months prior, in a video posted to social 2.  media by a different Country Boy Crips member, and with a caption that used phrasing and misspellings that suggested association with the Country Boy Crips. 6. On page 48, in the first full paragraph under the subheading “a. Wandick’s Prior Uncharged Crime” in the third sentence after the words “ ‘was 17 years old,’ ” add as a bracketed footnote 17 the following footnote, which will require renumbering of all subsequent footnotes: 17 The record reflects Wandick was approximately 16 years, 10 months old at the time of the August 2017 incident. There is no change in the judgment. Appellant Taeviyon Wandick’s petition for rehearing is denied. DETJEN, J. WE CONCUR: HILL, P. J. SANDHU, J. 3. Filed 10/19/26 P. v. Wandick CA5 (unmodified opinion) NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, F087067 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. BF190036A, v. BF190036B) TAEVIYON WANDICK et al., Defendants and Appellants. OPINION APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. John W. Lua, Judge. Valerie G. Wass, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Taeviyon Wandick. Jean M. Marinovich, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Denell James Martray King. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Darren K. Indermill and Ian Whitney, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-  INTRODUCTION In connection with the shooting death of Daniell Williams on a Bakersfield highway, a jury convicted defendants Taeviyon Wandick and Denell James Martray King (collectively, defendants) of the following offenses: Count 1: First degree premeditated murder, committed by means of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle, and for the benefit of a criminal street gang, during the commission of which a principal personally used and discharged a firearm.1 (§§ 187, subd. (a), 186.22, subd. (b)(1), 190.2, subd. (a)(21), 12022.53, subds. (d), (e)(1).) Count 2: Shooting at an occupied motor vehicle, committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang, during the commission of which a principal personally used and discharged a firearm. (§§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1), 246, 12022.53, subds. (d), (e)(1).) Count 3: Active participation in a criminal street gang. (§ 186.22, subd. (a).) Count 4: Conspiracy to commit murder, committed for the benefit of a street gang, during the commission of which a principal personally used and discharged a firearm. (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 186.22, subd. (b)(1), 12022.53, subds. (d), (e)(1).) Count 5: Gang conspiracy. (§ 182.5.) Following a bifurcated court trial, the court found each defendant had suffered one prior serious felony conviction that also constituted a “strike” within the meaning of the Three Strikes law. (§§ 667, subds. (a), (c)–(j), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(e).) Additionally, the court found several aggravating sentencing factors true. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(1)–(2), (b)(1)–(3).) 1 A gang special circumstance on count 1 was found not true by the jury. (Pen. Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(22).) All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2.  Each defendant was sentenced on count 1 to a term of life without the possibility of parole, plus an additional term of 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement, and a five-year term for the prior serious felony conviction. Sentence on the remaining counts and enhancements was imposed and stayed pursuant to section 654. Defendants raise numerous arguments on appeal. Wandick’s arguments, which are joined by King except where otherwise indicated below, are as follows: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendants’ motions to bifurcate trial of the gang special circumstance and gang-related firearm enhancements, and in failing to address bifurcation of trial on the gang conspiracy offense2; (2) the court abused its discretion in admitting gang-related evidence, including evidence of defendants’ prior offenses, to prove motive and intent; (3) the evidence is insufficient to support a finding of intent to kill as required to support defendants’ convictions for first degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and the drive-by murder special circumstance and, relatedly, the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that Wandick was the shooter; (4) the evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s true finding on the drive-by murder special circumstance because the evidence shows the shooter shot at an occupied motor vehicle, as opposed to directly at an individual, as defendants contend is required by the applicable statute; (5) the true findings on the gang enhancements and gang-related firearm enhancements are insufficiently supported because the evidence fails to prove the offenses provided a common benefit to the gang that was more than reputational and that defendants intended to benefit, promote, or further the activities of the gang; (6) the gang conspiracy conviction is unsupported by substantial evidence that defendants committed the target offense charged, i.e., a violation of section 26100, subdivision (c); (7) the jury was erroneously instructed on an element of the target offense supporting his gang 2 Wandick also argues the court denied defendants’ request to bifurcate trial of the substantive gang offense. As we explain below, however, the court granted this request, which defendants subsequently withdrew. 3. conspiracy conviction; (8) the convictions for active participation in a criminal street gang must be reversed because this offense is a lesser included offense of gang conspiracy; (9) Wandick was prejudiced by the cumulative effect of the court’s errors with respect to bifurcation, admission of gang-related evidence, and instruction on the target offense for gang conspiracy; (10) if the gang conspiracy convictions are affirmed, the sentences must be modified because they were calculated based on a target offense of murder, rather than a violation of section 26100, as charged; and (11) if we affirm the conviction on count 2 and the related true findings on the enhancements, defendants must be resentenced on count 2 because they were sentenced pursuant to an alternate penalty provision set forth in section 186.22, subdivision (b)(4) that was neither pled nor proved and, in any event, the sentence violates section 12022.53, subdivision (e)(2). In addition to joining most of Wandick’s arguments, King separately argues (1) the sentence on count 2 must be reduced because it violates section 12022.53, subdivision (e)(2); (2) the instructions erroneously allowed the jury to convict him of murder and conspiracy to commit murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine; (3) the court prejudicially erred in admitting gang evidence to prove motive and intent; (4) substantial evidence does not support the jury’s finding of intent to kill, as required to support his convictions for murder and conspiracy to commit murder, as well as the true finding on the special circumstance; and (5) the true finding on the gang enhancements is not supported by substantial evidence that the offenses provided a nonreputational benefit to the gang. We agree the gang conspiracy convictions are unsupported by substantial evidence that defendants committed the target offense charged, i.e., a violation of section 26100, subdivision (c). We therefore modify the verdicts on count 5 to reflect convictions for gang conspiracy based on a lesser included target felony violation of section 26100, subdivision (d). As such, we also agree that resentencing is required on this count and vacate the sentences. We additionally agree that the sentences on count 2 must be 4. vacated because the alternate penalty provision set forth in section 186.22, subdivision (b)(4) was neither pled nor proved. Additionally, imposition of both the gang enhancement and firearm enhancement on this count violates the dual use prohibition set forth in section 12022.53, subdivision (e)(2). We remand for resentencing and reject defendants’ remaining contentions. In all other respects, the judgments are affirmed. BACKGROUND On May 5, 2022, at approximately 6:34 p.m., Daniell Williams was fatally shot multiple times while driving a black Chevrolet Camaro convertible on eastbound Highway 58 in Bakersfield. I. The Shooting At approximately 6:19 p.m. on May 5, 2022, Jesse U.3 drove from a mall in Bakersfield and onto northbound Highway 99 with his wife Selena U. as his passenger. Jesse noticed a black Camaro entering the highway with them. As Jesse merged onto eastbound Highway 58, the black Camaro passed him on the left, in the far-left lane, traveling approximately 100 miles per hour. A few seconds later, a light-colored Toyota Camry passed him, also driving at a high rate of speed. The Camry caught up to the Camaro and moved to the left of the Camaro, onto the dirt shoulder between the left lane and the center divider of the highway. The cars were still traveling around 95 to 100 miles per hour. The passenger side of the Camry was even, or close to even, with the driver’s side of the Camaro. The Camry swerved toward the Camaro then moved back to the left. The Camaro then appeared to lose control, moving suddenly to the far-right side of the highway before veering back to the far left of the highway and crashing into the center divider. Neither Jesse nor Selena heard gunshots. After the crash, the Camry kept 3 Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.90, we refer to some persons by their first names or initials. No disrespect is intended. 5. driving. Jesse pulled over at the center divider and saw one person inside the Camaro slumped over the passenger seat. Nicole E. was driving in the left lane of eastbound Highway 58 when she saw a black Camaro coming up behind her at a high rate of speed. Nicole estimated she was driving 80 to 85 miles per hour when she first saw the Camaro in her rearview mirror. Nicole moved to the middle lane to allow the Camaro to pass and noticed a light-colored Camry driving on the dirt shoulder to the Camaro’s left. The Camry was weaving and eventually forced the Camaro into the middle lane behind Nicole. Nicole sped up to 100 miles per hour and the Camaro kept pace behind her. The Camry pulled into the left lane, to the left of the Camaro, and Nicole heard five to seven gunshots. The Camaro swerved to the left and crashed into the center divider. The Camry sped up to the right and exited at Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard.4 Nicole saw four males in the Camry. She described the driver as a Black male with shoulder-length dreadlocks who was wearing a white T-shirt. The man in the rear driver-side seat also wore a white T-shirt and had cornrows with braids. The person in the rear passenger seat looked “like a little kid.” She did not get a good look at the person in the front passenger seat and could not describe him. Nicole initially testified that all the windows of the Camry were rolled down. However, she later recalled that the right-rear window of the Camry was rolled up and all the other windows were down. Nicole called 911 to report a shooting and crash on Highway 58 involving a newer black Camaro and an older silver Corolla occupied by four African-American males, two of whom had dreadlocks. Nicole reported that she saw shots fired from the Corolla at the Camaro, which then crashed and went over the center median, but she did not see who 4 At the time of the murder, Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard was named Cottonwood Road. For consistency, we use the current street name. 6. fired the shots. She reported the first three digits of the Corolla’s license plate were “4CW.” Meanwhile, Jason M. called 911 to report a serious accident on eastbound Highway 58 involving a single black vehicle occupied by only the driver. Jason reported that the car, which appeared to have bullet holes, hit the center divider and the driver, who did not appear to be breathing, may have been shot. II. GPS Data Wandick and King were both wearing GPS ankle monitors at the time of the offense. The devices were monitored through a computer program that determined the monitor’s location once every minute and provided the latitude and longitude of the monitor within a 50-foot radius. Wandick’s GPS data from May 5, 2022, showed Wandick was at the mall at 6:26:20 p.m. At 6:33:01 p.m., he was on eastbound Highway 58. At 6:34:01 p.m., he was on an eastbound off-ramp from Highway 58, heading toward Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard. King’s GPS data from May 5, 2022, similarly showed King leaving the mall at approximately 6:26:04 p.m., traveling on eastbound Highway 58 at 6:33:06 p.m., and at the Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard off-ramp at 6:34:06 p.m. The ankle monitors showed that Wandick and King traveled to an address on Larcus Avenue after exiting the highway.5 III. Video Evidence Surveillance video from a business near the Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard off-ramp showed a Toyota Camry that matched the description of the suspect vehicle exiting Highway 58 near the time of the shooting. Video from another business to the 5 Wandick was later located and arrested at the Larcus Avenue address on May 7, 2022. King was arrested the same day at a different location. The Camry eventually was located in a residential neighborhood about two blocks away from the Larcus Avenue address on May 16, 2022. 7. north of the highway exit showed the tan Camry traveling north on Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard at a high rate of speed at 6:34 p.m. Surveillance video from the mall showed a late 1990’s model tan Toyota Camry entering the parking lot at 5:42 p.m. At 6:24 p.m., three individuals, identified as Wandick, King, and Christopher Thompson, exited the mall and walked to the tan Camry. King had dreadlocks and wore a white tank top and light-colored pants; he got into the driver’s seat. Wandick wore a red shirt, light-colored pants, and white shoes; he got into the front passenger seat. Thompson wore a black T-shirt, black shorts, gray or white socks, and black shoes; he got into the rear driver-side seat. Meanwhile, at approximately 6:26 p.m., the Camaro entered the parking lot and drove to the front of a large retailer, where a passenger exited the vehicle. While the Camaro was stopped, the Camry passed by in the opposite direction, with the front passenger window open and the rear passenger window closed. As the Camry passed by, Wandick turned back and appeared to turn his attention toward the Camaro. The Camry stopped in a parking stall. At 6:29 p.m., the Camaro drove away from the retailer toward the mall exit, followed by the Camry. The Camry stopped at a stop sign and let several cars pass before Wandick leaned forward and pointed toward the Camaro. King accelerated through the intersection. King then proceeded through a red light and onto northbound Highway 99, following the Camaro. Law enforcement was not able to decipher the Camry’s license plate number from the mall videos. However, law enforcement attempted to look for traffic camera images to locate the Camry’s license plate number. Ultimately, a traffic camera photograph taken on May 3, 2022, captured a Camry that appeared similar to the suspect vehicle, with a license plate beginning 4CDZ. Law enforcement contacted the registered owner of the Camry with the license plate beginning 4CDZ and learned that it had been sold on April 27, 2022, to an older African-American man named Marcellas through a listing on OfferUp. A younger African-American male with longer hair or dreadlocks waited in the 8. car during the sale. King’s father’s name is Marcellas. An OfferUp account under the name Marcellas relisted the Camry for sale on May 6, 2022. IV. Physical Evidence Williams was found slumped over the center console of the Camaro. He had a gunshot wound to his left temple, another gunshot wound to his left shoulder, and a third gunshot wound to his right thigh behind the knee. An autopsy determined the cause of death was multiple gunshot wounds. The Camaro had six bullet holes: four in the driver’s door and two in the rear- quarter panel. Four spent rounds and a copper jacket were found inside the driver’s door. Four nine-millimeter shell casings were found on the highway west of where the Camaro crashed.6 Three additional shell casings were found under the front passenger seat of the Camry. All seven shell casings were fired from the same gun. V. DNA Evidence Multiple DNA samples were taken from the Camry. A DNA profile obtained from a swab of the interior driver’s door handle and pull handle was a mixture from at least three contributors. Thompson was excluded as a potential contributor. A comparison with Wandick’s DNA sample was inconclusive. King could not be excluded as a contributor. King was 200 octillion times more likely to have contributed to the DNA mixture on the handle than a random unrelated African- American person, 11 nonillion times more likely to have contributed than a random Caucasian person, and 9.8 nonillion times more likely to have contributed than a random Hispanic person. A DNA profile obtained from a swab of the steering wheel also was a mixture from at least three contributors. Thompson was excluded as a potential contributor. The 6 A fifth nine-millimeter shell casing found in the same area appeared to be old compared to the other casings and unrelated to the incident. 9. results as to Wandick were inconclusive. King could not be excluded as a potential contributor. King was 35 trillion times more likely to have contributed to the DNA than a random African-American person, 82 trillion times more likely to have contributed than a random Caucasian person, and 12 trillion times more likely to have contributed than a random Hispanic person. A DNA profile obtained from a swab of the interior front passenger door and pull handle also was a mixture from at least three contributors. Thompson was excluded as a potential contributor. The results as to Wandick were inconclusive. King could not be excluded as a potential contributor to the DNA mixture on the interior front passenger door handle. King was 250 trillion times more likely to be a contributor to the DNA than a random African-American person, 8.4 quadrillion times more likely to be a contributor than a random Caucasian person, and 11 quadrillion times more likely to be a contributor than a random Hispanic person. A DNA profile obtained from a swab of the interior rear driver’s door and pull handle also was a mixture from at least three contributors. Wandick was excluded as a potential contributor. The results as to King were inconclusive. Thompson could not be excluded as a contributor. Thompson was 66 quadrillion times more likely to be a contributor to the DNA mixture than a random African-American person, 830 quintillion times more likely to be a contributor than a random Caucasian person, and 560 quintillion times more likely to be a contributor than a random Hispanic person. VI. Gang Evidence A. General Gang Evidence Bakersfield Police Officer T. Braughton testified as an expert in criminal street gangs. He testified regarding the operations of gangs generally before testifying more specifically regarding the Eastside Crips, Westside Crips, and Country Boy Crips. Reputation is important to a gang. Gang members attempt to instill fear and respect in rival gangs because being known as a strong gang makes it less likely rivals 10. will move into their territory, interfere with the gang’s primary activities, or “mess with” the gang. If a gang is feared, it has more freedom to commit crimes without being reported, which benefits the gang financially. A gang can instill fear in the community by conducting violent criminal activities against members of the public or rival gang members in public areas, or by showing force through a large number of gang members in areas known to be a stronghold. These activities are often posted to social media. The community is often aware of the gang-related nature of public violence, which deters reporting. Gangs have members, who are active participants and “put in work” for the gang; associates, who “hang[] around” and assist members of the gang with the gang’s primary activities; and affiliates, who may be family or friends of gang members, but who do not participate in gang activity. Associates and affiliates may be perceived by rivals as members of the gang. Close family members of gang members likewise may be perceived by rivals to be a gang member or associate, and may be targeted by rivals as a known associate of a gang member. Gang rivals are expected to fight or shoot each other when they cross paths in public. Gang members “primarily use social media” to determine whether someone is a member of a rival gang and will use social media to belittle, “trash talk,” and disrespect each other. Gang members will also question unfamiliar individuals within their territory to determine if they are from a rival gang area. Generally, gangs make money through illegal activities such as pimping and pandering, the sale of illegal narcotics and firearms, and the sale of items obtained through theft, burglary, and robbery. Most gangs have a defined territory but members need not live within that territory. Braughton explained that the Eastside Crips had been in the Bakersfield area since approximately the 1980’s and had since branched into five different subsets. Two of the primary rivals of the Eastside Crips are the Westside Crips, including the Young Lokes 11. subset, and the Country Boy Crips, including the Watts and Lotus subset and the Reese and Cheatham subset. There have been numerous instances of violent crimes and a long history of shootings and homicides between the Eastside Crips and Country Boy Crips. There also have been incidents involving violence between the Eastside Crips and the Westside Crips. The Eastside Crips have a defined territory and use hand signs to identify themselves and to disrespect rival gangs. Active participants of the gang generally have monikers. The primary activities of the Eastside Crips include murder, firearms possession, assault, robbery, theft, and drug possession and sales. Braughton explained that firearm possession adds to a gang member’s reputation. A gang member can use a firearm to move freely throughout the gang’s territory, and to protect themselves while in a rival gang’s territory. Braughton opined that the Eastside Crips engage in a pattern of criminal gang activity. The mall where defendants first passed by the victim is in a Country Boy Crips area, but not specifically within their territory. B. Evidence Regarding Wandick and King The parties stipulated that, on May 5, 2022, King and Wandick were active participants in the Eastside Crips, a criminal street gang in Bakersfield, and knew Eastside Crips members engage in or have engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity. Braughton viewed King’s and Wandick’s social media accounts by using a “ruse” or fake Instagram account that allowed him to observe others’ accounts. Wandick’s account, which was publicly accessible, bore the account name “Clannmemba1100.” The account had a picture of Wandick and King together. The account also had a video of Wandick saying, “Eastside Crips, we the hardest gang out here,” and “We the most hated on, Eastside Crips.” (Boldface omitted.) King’s Instagram account profile name was “YC_DA_Gunman.” King’s moniker is “YC” or “Young Coke.” King’s profile contained the phrase, “Rest in peace Lil Will” 12. (boldface omitted), an apparent reference to Wandick’s deceased brother, who was also a member of the Eastside Crips. King’s profile page also contained the hashtags “6K,” “32K,” and “EBK.” Braughton explained that “6K” meant “6th Street killer,” which disrespected the 6th Street subset of the Westside Crips. The phrase “6K” is often used by Eastside Crips on social media and in tattoos. He testified that the “32” in “32K” referred to the third and second letters of the alphabet, and the phrase therefore meant “Country Boy killer.” He explained that “EBK” is often used by Crips in California to mean “everybody killer.” King’s account also had a picture of King making a hand sign that indicated disrespect for the Watts and Lotus subset of the Country Boy Crips. Another photograph showed King and Wandick together, with King making the same hand gesture. King’s account also had another copy of the same photograph of King and Wandick, but with emojis and the wording, “Free dem 11 Street demons.” Braughton explained “11 Street” refers to a subset of the Eastside Crips. King also had a YouTube account under the name “YC Dagunman.” One video on this account included King, Wandick, and other known Eastside Crips gang members. In the video, Wandick made a hand gesture disrespecting Westside Crips. Braughton testified that Thompson was also a member of the Eastside Crips who goes by the moniker “Baby Kaytta.” Thompson had an Instagram account under the name “Kaytta Frm SB” that contained various references to the Stroller Boy subset of the Eastside Crips. The account contained photographs showing Thompson making hand signs associated with the Stroller Boy subset, as well as writing referring to the Midcity Crips and to freeing incarcerated gang members. On February 28, 2022, an officer saw King and Wandick together in the parking lot of a market in Bakersfield. On March 3, 2022, a different officer observed King and Thompson, along with other Eastside Crips gang members, in the area of an Eastside Crips “hood day” celebration in Bakersfield. Officers explained that a hood day is a 13. celebration of the gang. On March 12, 2022, at approximately 1:00 a.m., an officer responded to an incident at a reception hall in Bakersfield. Video from that venue showed a gathering of known Eastside Crips members, including King, Wandick, and Thompson. C. Evidence Regarding Williams Williams lived close to, but outside of, the traditional territory of the Country Boy Crips. He had a cousin who is a member of the Eastside Crips. Using a ruse or fake account, Bakersfield Senior Police Officer J. Orozco located a SnapChat account belonging to Cecil H., a Country Boy Crips gang member. The day after the shooting, Orozco found, on Cecil’s account, a video paying homage to Williams, and to Cecil’s deceased brother Christian, another Country Boy Crips member who had recently been killed. Text associated with the video suggested the video was associated with the Country Boy Crips. Braughton testified that Cecil’s inclusion of Williams in the video showed Williams’s association with Country Boy Crips members or associates, and suggested Williams also might be perceived as a member or associate. Cecil’s video tagged Williams’s SnapChat account, which bore the name “D Will SS.” “SS” is a reference to “south side,” which is a typical identifier used by the Country Boy Crips. Williams’s social media accounts were private so Braughton could not view them, beyond the profile picture and some limited information. Williams had an identical twin brother named Daleno or Daleon.7 Daleon was fatally shot in his residence on March 2, 2017. Daleon had a publicly accessible Facebook account that included a profile picture with the Camaro Williams was driving at the time of his death. Daleon’s Facebook account also contained several posts indicating Country Boy Crips membership or association, particularly with the Watts and 7 Both names are used in the record. For clarity, we refer to Williams’s brother as Daleon. 14. Lotus subset. Daleon also had a publicly accessible Instagram page with posts showing association with the Country Boy Crips and Watts and Lotus subset. Braughton opined that Daleon’s publicly accessible accounts could lead to Williams being perceived as a member or associate of the Country Boy Crips. In relation to Daleon’s murder, law enforcement spoke with Eastside Crips and obtained video footage of interactions Daleon had with others in the days before the murder. Based on their review of that footage, law enforcement contacted Wandick, who was noted to have two significant tattoos on his wrist: the letters “WSK,” meaning Westside killer, and “CBK,” meaning Country Boy killer. (Boldface omitted.) Braughton conceded there was no evidence that Williams put in work for the gang or had any significant police contacts. Braughton also conceded he had no evidence that defendants or other Eastside Crips saw social media associating Williams with the Country Boy Crips. Braughton was unaware of any instance in which Williams was known to have disrespected the Eastside Crips, King, Wandick, or Thompson, whether online or offline. Nonetheless, Braughton noted that the perpetrators of the murder appeared to be following and targeting the Camaro, which suggested to Braughton that the perpetrators perceived the driver of the Camaro to be a gang rival. Braughton also opined it was possible Williams was perceived to be Daleon, if the perpetrators were unaware that Daleon was killed in 2017. D. Hypothetical and Benefit to the Gang Given a hypothetical similar to the facts of the charged offenses, and assuming the victim was perceived to be a gang rival, Braughton opined that the shooting would provide a benefit to the Eastside Crips. Braughton explained that targeting a perceived rival gang member or associate would hurt the rival gang by making the gang weaker, reducing their power to defend the gang, go on the offensive, or retaliate. Additionally, public violence would dissuade rival gang members and the public from reporting the crime or other crimes to the police, due to fear of retaliation. Reduced police 15. involvement in the gang’s affairs would benefit the gang. The crimes also promote and further the activities of the gang by showing the strength of the gang, which can encourage young people in the community to join the perpetrator’s gang, as opposed to a rival gang, which is made to look weaker. The reputational benefits the gang receives by committing these crimes can also benefit the gang financially because it allows the gang to commit more crimes without interference from law enforcement. Braughton acknowledged there was no evidence any member of the public refused to cooperate with law enforcement in this case due to fear of gangs. Indeed, multiple people spoke with police at the scene of the shooting. Likewise, there was no evidence that the crimes caused fear in members of the public or rival gangs. Additionally, there was no evidence that witnesses, youth, or community members understood the crime to have been gang-related or committed by Eastside Crips. Braughton explained that the public usually learns of the gang-related nature of a crime over time through word of mouth and police press releases. Although Braughton was unaware of any media releases issued in relation to this case, another officer testified that a local news agency put out an article soon after the shooting describing it as being gang related. There was no evidence the crimes affected the ability of the Country Boy Crips to defend their territory. Additionally, Braughton was unaware of any financial benefit to defendants or the Eastside Crips resulting from the crimes. E. Predicate Offenses and Other Gang-related Crimes Law enforcement officers testified regarding several predicate, gang-related offenses. 1. 2017 Shooting On April 18, 2017, a shooting took place outside a home on Crestline Road in Bakersfield. Law enforcement found bullet impact marks on the front of the house near a window frame, bullet holes in a tree in the front yard, bullets and bullet fragments in the driveway, and 11 spent nine-millimeter shell casings near the home. 16.  Three individuals were present in the home during the shooting, including a known active member of the Westside Crips. Video surveillance revealed the incident involved three shooters, including King and another individual later identified as Kevon K. King ultimately was convicted in relation to the incident of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b)), with a gang enhancement (§ 186.22, former subd. (b)(1)). Kevon was convicted of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)), with a gang enhancement (§ 186.22, former subd. (b)(1)). Braughton opined that both men were active members of the Eastside Crips at the time of the shooting. He opined that this incident involved Eastside Crips assaulting or “going after” perceived rivals and benefitted the gang by instilling fear in rival gang members and the public, making the public less likely to cooperate with the police, and aiding the Eastside Crips in engaging other felonious activities without police interference. 2. 2019 Stabbing On February 2, 2019, at approximately 1:30 a.m. police responded to a report of a stabbing that occurred outside of a party in Kern County. The victim was stabbed several times and later died from his injuries. A video of the incident showed the victim and his brother fighting multiple people, including three documented members of the