Duran

People v. Duran

Bad Law
119 Cal. Rptr. 2d 272·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4039·2002 Daily Journal DAR 4705·97 Cal. App. 4th 1448·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3739
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 30, 2002B147984California6,011 words

Opinion

Opinion

Aldrich, J.

I

Introduction

After a jury trial, defendants and appellants Antonio Duran and Jesus Fonseca were each convicted of two counts of robbery. Duran was also convicted of evading a police officer. The jury found firearm and street gang enhancements true, and the trial court sentenced Duran and Fonseca to prison terms of 23 years and 33 years, 4 months, respectively.

In the published portion of this opinion, we consider and reject appellants’ contentions that the evidence was insufficient to prove the robberies were undertaken for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). We hold that a certified minute order documenting a third gang member’s conviction for a predicate offense was not inadmissible hearsay. The minute order, coupled with a gang expert’s testimony, was sufficient to establish one predicate offense. We also conclude that the People presented sufficient evidence to prove that the gang’s primary activities were statutorily enumerated criminal offenses within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (f).

In the unpublished portion of the opinion, we address Fonseca’s contention that…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.