People v. Viramontes CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Sufficiency of Evidence to Support Gang Enhancement Viramontes contends that there is insufficient evidence that he committed the robbery to benefit a criminal street gang. (§§ 211, 186.22, subd. (b)(1).) We apply the usual standard of review in assessing whether the gang enhancement is supported by sufficient evidence. (People v. Albillar (2010) 51 Cal.4th 47, 59-60.) We view the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in favor of the finding. (Ibid.) Although the evidence might support a contrary finding, we do not substitute our views for those of the trier of fact. (Id. at p. 60.) Viramontes asserts there was insufficient evidence that a primary activity of the Ford Maravilla gang was commission of enumerated offenses because Detective Lucero did not identify the source of his knowledge that its members had committed the crimes he described. (Evid. Code, §§ 800, 801; In re Daniel C. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1363-1364 [opinion evidence is insubstantial if not supported by facts in the record].) Lucero testified that he had more than 20 years of experience with East Los Angeles gangs, had been assigned to the Ford Maravilla gang since 2010, and had…