Bonilla
Bonilla v. Adams
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Bonilla appeals the District Court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. He was convicted of armed robbery and possession of a firearm by a felon. He contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the gang enhancements to his sentence pursuant to Cal.Penal Code § 186.22(b). See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 316, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
A gang enhancement under Cal.Penal Code § 186.22(b) requires the prosecution to prove two separate and distinct elements beyond a reasonable doubt: first, that the defendant committed a felony “for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with [a] criminal street gang”; and second, that the defendant committed the crime “with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist” in criminal conduct by gang members. Cal.Penal Code § 186.22(b)(1). Bonilla contends that the evidence that the prosecution presented— testimony that he committed a robbery with two other gang members and expert testimony that explained in hypothetical terms how such offenses could be useful to the gang as a whole — was insufficient to establish the second element.