ABASTA

Certified for Partial Publication [*]

Defendant, Rudy Raymond Abasta, appeals from his conviction for attempted murder (Pen.Code, [1] §§ 664, 186, subd. (a)) and findings that he: personally used a dangerous weapon; personally inflicted great bodily injury; and committed the offense for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with, a criminal street gang. (§§ 12022, subd. (b)(1), 12022.7, subd. (a), 186.22, subd. (b)(1).) Defendant argues the trial court improperly instructed the jury with CALJIC No. 2.28 and sentenced him pursuant to section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1). In the published portion of this opinion, we address the question of whether Proposition 21 on the March 7, 2000, ballot violates the "single subject rule" of California Constitution, article II, section 8, subdivision (d). We conclude Proposition 21 does not violate the single subject rule.

We view the evidence in a light most favorable to the judgment. ( Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 ; People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 690 , 55 Cal. Rptr.2d 26 , 919 P.2d 640 ; Taylor v. Stainer (9th Cir.1994) 31 F.3d 907, 908-909 .) On April 14,…