Morrissette

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Matthew Morrisette sought an alternative writ of mandate/prohibition after the superior court denied his Penal Code section 995 motion to set aside an information that charged him, in part, with the substantive gang offense (§ 186.22, subd. (a)), gang-related enhancements (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)), and a gang special-circumstance allegation (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(22)). (Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) In the motion, Morrisette argued the gang-related allegations should be dismissed in light of the changes effectuated by Assembly Bill No. 333 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 333), which became effective on January 1, 2022. He asserted the gang offense, enhancements, and special circumstance allegation were proven at the preliminary hearing under the former law, but the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing was insufficient under the new definitions of “pattern of criminal gang activity” and “criminal street gang” to support them. The court denied the section 995 motion and, initially, we denied the petition from the court’s order. Morrissette then petitioned for review in the California Supreme Court and the matter was…