California Criminal Law

Podcast

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

What charges were Ruben Mendoza and Jaime Ramos facing?

Attempted murder, shooting at an inhabited dwelling, assault with an assault weapon, evading a police officer, active participation in a criminal street gang, and resisting, delaying, or obstructing a police officer (correct)

Robbery and assault

Identity theft and fraud

Drug trafficking and possession

What was Mendoza's argument in his section 995 motion to dismiss?

There was no evidence that the predicate offenses constituted collective criminal activity or that they benefited the gang

The 2013 predicate offense does not fall within the new requisite timeframe

All of the above (correct)

The 2015 predicate offense presented involved only one alleged gang member

What did the court rule on Mendoza's section 995 motion to dismiss?

The court granted the motion to dismiss the gang charge but denied the enhancements

The court denied the motion to dismiss the gang charge and enhancements (correct)

The court granted the motion to dismiss the gang charge and enhancements

The court denied the motion to dismiss the gang charge but granted the enhancements

What did Mendoza do after his section 995 motion to dismiss was denied?

He filed a section 999a petition for writ of mandamus seeking review of the court’s order Signup and view all the answers

Under what circumstances can new criminal laws govern prosecutions initiated before the law went into effect?

Only for new laws that mitigate punishment Signup and view all the answers

What did the California Supreme Court hold about the retroactive application of Assembly Bill 333?

It applies retroactively under the rule of Estrada Signup and view all the answers

What is the Burks rule?

It forbids retrial after a reversal ordered because the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to support the verdict Signup and view all the answers

What did Mendoza argue about the Varrio Rexland Park gang in the preliminary hearing?

It was not an ongoing and organized association Signup and view all the answers

What were Ruben Mendoza and Jaime Ramos charged with?

Attempted murder, shooting at an inhabited dwelling, assault with an assault weapon, evading a police officer, active participation in a criminal street gang, and resisting, delaying, or obstructing a police officer Signup and view all the answers

What was Mendoza's argument for dismissing the substantive gang charge and the gang enhancements?

All of the above Signup and view all the answers

What was the court's decision on Mendoza's section 995 motion to dismiss?

The court denied Mendoza's motion to dismiss Signup and view all the answers

What did the court find about Assembly Bill 333's changes to section 186.22?

They should apply retroactively to the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing Signup and view all the answers

What is the Burks rule?

It forbids retrial after a reversal ordered because the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to support the verdict Signup and view all the answers

What is Mendoza's argument about the Varrio Rexland Park gang?

The gang did not engage in a pattern of criminal gang activity Signup and view all the answers

What is section 995a of the California Penal Code?

All of the above Signup and view all the answers

What is the exception recognized by the California Supreme Court for new criminal laws?

New criminal laws only govern prosecutions initiated before the law went into effect if they mitigate punishment Signup and view all the answers

What were Ruben Mendoza and Jaime Ramos charged with?

What is Assembly Bill 333?

A bill that allows for retroactive application of new criminal laws Signup and view all the answers

What was Mendoza's argument in his section 995 motion to dismiss?

All of the above Signup and view all the answers

What did the court rule in response to Mendoza's section 995 motion to dismiss?

The court denied Mendoza's motion to dismiss Signup and view all the answers

What did Mendoza argue in his section 999a petition for writ of mandamus?

The court erred in not dismissing the gang offense and enhancements Signup and view all the answers

What is the Burks rule?

A rule that forbids retrial after a reversal ordered because the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to support the verdict Signup and view all the answers

What does section 995a, subdivision (b) of the California Penal Code allow for?

A court to order further proceedings to correct errors alleged by the defendant if those errors are minor errors of omission, ambiguity, or technical defect which can be expeditiously cured or corrected without a rehearing of a substantial portion of the evidence Signup and view all the answers

What is the exception recognized by the California Supreme Court for new criminal laws that mitigate punishment?

New criminal laws that mitigate punishment may apply retroactively Signup and view all the answers

Study Notes

California Court Rules on Retroactive Application of Assembly Bill 333 in Gang-Related Cases

Ruben Mendoza and Jaime Ramos were charged with attempted murder, shooting at an inhabited dwelling, assault with an assault weapon, evading a police officer, active participation in a criminal street gang, and resisting, delaying, or obstructing a police officer.
Mendoza filed a section 995 motion to dismiss the substantive gang charge and the gang enhancements attached to counts 1, 2, 3, and 4 in light of the passage of Assembly Bill 333.
Mendoza argued that the 2015 predicate offense presented involved only one alleged gang member and that the 2013 predicate offense does not fall within the new requisite timeframe because it was not committed within three years of the current offense.
Mendoza further contended that there was no evidence that the predicate offenses constituted collective criminal activity or that they benefited the gang, and that the prosecution failed to establish Varrio Rexland Park as an ongoing, organized association whose members engage in a pattern of criminal gang activity.
The court denied Mendoza’s section 995 motion to dismiss, stating that the case law allows the district attorney to retry the case on the amended elements without redoing the preliminary hearing.
Mendoza filed a section 999a petition for writ of mandamus seeking review of the court’s order denying his section 995 motion to dismiss the active gang participation charge and gang enhancements.
The court found that Assembly Bill 333’s changes to section 186.22 should apply retroactively to the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing.
The California Supreme Court has recognized an exception to the rule that new criminal laws do not govern prosecutions initiated before the law went into effect for new laws that mitigate punishment.
The California Supreme Court has held that Assembly Bill 333 applies retroactively under the rule of Estrada.
The parties agree that the evidence at the preliminary hearing was insufficient to hold Mendoza to answer to the active gang participation charge and gang enhancements based on the changes in the law.
The prosecutor may move to reopen the preliminary hearing proceedings to present additional evidence on the amended elements of the gang-related charges or proceed without them.
Conduct under the old law may no longer constitute an offense, and a defendant should only be held to answer where it appears from the preliminary examination that a public offense has been committed under the new law. Legal Principles Governing Remand in California Criminal Cases
In California, a defendant may challenge an information based on the sufficiency of the record made before the magistrate at the preliminary hearing.
Section 995a, subdivision (b) of the California Penal Code allows a court to order further proceedings to correct errors alleged by the defendant if those errors are minor errors of omission, ambiguity, or technical defect which can be expeditiously cured or corrected without a rehearing of a substantial portion of the evidence.
Before a trial court may institute further proceedings to correct preliminary hearing errors, section 995a requires it to make two separate findings: a minor error of omission, ambiguity, or technical defect which can be expeditiously cured.
In cases where a conviction is reversed because the evidence is now insufficient to support it based solely upon a change in the law that occurred after the defendant was convicted, retrial of that conviction is permitted and not barred by the double jeopardy clause.
The California Supreme Court has held that when evidence is not introduced at trial because the law at that time would have rendered it irrelevant, the remand to prove that element is proper, and the reviewing court does not treat the issue as one of sufficiency of the evidence.
The Burks rule forbids retrial after a reversal ordered because the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to support the verdict.
The rule achieves its aim of protecting the defendant against the harassment and risks of unnecessary repeated trials on the same charge by giving the prosecution a powerful incentive to make the best case it can at its first opportunity.
In his section 999a petition for writ of mandamus, Mendoza asserts the court erred in not dismissing the gang offense and enhancements.
Mendoza argues the evidence at the preliminary hearing did not establish that the benefit of the current offense was anything more than reputational.
Mendoza further contends the evidence failed to establish the 2013 predicate offense occurred within three years of the current offense and the 2015 predicate offense was not a valid predicate because it only involved one individual—Miguel Perez.
Mendoza also contends there was no evidence either predicate offense benefitted the gang in a way that was more than reputational.
Mendoza argues the preliminary hearing failed to establish the Varrio Rexland Park gang was an ongoing and “organized” association.

California Court Rules on Retroactive Application of Assembly Bill 333 in Gang-Related Cases

Ruben Mendoza and Jaime Ramos were charged with attempted murder, shooting at an inhabited dwelling, assault with an assault weapon, evading a police officer, active participation in a criminal street gang, and resisting, delaying, or obstructing a police officer.
Mendoza filed a section 995 motion to dismiss the substantive gang charge and the gang enhancements attached to counts 1, 2, 3, and 4 in light of the passage of Assembly Bill 333.
Mendoza argued that the 2015 predicate offense presented involved only one alleged gang member and that the 2013 predicate offense does not fall within the new requisite timeframe because it was not committed within three years of the current offense.
Mendoza further contended that there was no evidence that the predicate offenses constituted collective criminal activity or that they benefited the gang, and that the prosecution failed to establish Varrio Rexland Park as an ongoing, organized association whose members engage in a pattern of criminal gang activity.
The court denied Mendoza’s section 995 motion to dismiss, stating that the case law allows the district attorney to retry the case on the amended elements without redoing the preliminary hearing.
Mendoza filed a section 999a petition for writ of mandamus seeking review of the court’s order denying his section 995 motion to dismiss the active gang participation charge and gang enhancements.
The court found that Assembly Bill 333’s changes to section 186.22 should apply retroactively to the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing.
The California Supreme Court has recognized an exception to the rule that new criminal laws do not govern prosecutions initiated before the law went into effect for new laws that mitigate punishment.
The California Supreme Court has held that Assembly Bill 333 applies retroactively under the rule of Estrada.
The parties agree that the evidence at the preliminary hearing was insufficient to hold Mendoza to answer to the active gang participation charge and gang enhancements based on the changes in the law.
The prosecutor may move to reopen the preliminary hearing proceedings to present additional evidence on the amended elements of the gang-related charges or proceed without them.
Conduct under the old law may no longer constitute an offense, and a defendant should only be held to answer where it appears from the preliminary examination that a public offense has been committed under the new law. Legal Principles Governing Remand in California Criminal Cases
In California, a defendant may challenge an information based on the sufficiency of the record made before the magistrate at the preliminary hearing.
Section 995a, subdivision (b) of the California Penal Code allows a court to order further proceedings to correct errors alleged by the defendant if those errors are minor errors of omission, ambiguity, or technical defect which can be expeditiously cured or corrected without a rehearing of a substantial portion of the evidence.
Before a trial court may institute further proceedings to correct preliminary hearing errors, section 995a requires it to make two separate findings: a minor error of omission, ambiguity, or technical defect which can be expeditiously cured.
In cases where a conviction is reversed because the evidence is now insufficient to support it based solely upon a change in the law that occurred after the defendant was convicted, retrial of that conviction is permitted and not barred by the double jeopardy clause.
The California Supreme Court has held that when evidence is not introduced at trial because the law at that time would have rendered it irrelevant, the remand to prove that element is proper, and the reviewing court does not treat the issue as one of sufficiency of the evidence.
The Burks rule forbids retrial after a reversal ordered because the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to support the verdict.
The rule achieves its aim of protecting the defendant against the harassment and risks of unnecessary repeated trials on the same charge by giving the prosecution a powerful incentive to make the best case it can at its first opportunity.
In his section 999a petition for writ of mandamus, Mendoza asserts the court erred in not dismissing the gang offense and enhancements.
Mendoza argues the evidence at the preliminary hearing did not establish that the benefit of the current offense was anything more than reputational.
Mendoza further contends the evidence failed to establish the 2013 predicate offense occurred within three years of the current offense and the 2015 predicate offense was not a valid predicate because it only involved one individual—Miguel Perez.
Mendoza also contends there was no evidence either predicate offense benefitted the gang in a way that was more than reputational.
Mendoza argues the preliminary hearing failed to establish the Varrio Rexland Park gang was an ongoing and “organized” association.

Studying That Suits You

Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

Description

Test your knowledge of California criminal law with this quiz on the recent court ruling on retroactive application of Assembly Bill 333 in gang-related cases and the legal principles governing remand in California criminal cases. See how well you understand the court's decision and the arguments presented by the defendant. Brush up on your understanding of California criminal law and legal procedures with this informative quiz.