P. v. Camacho
Defendant and appellant Salvador Javier Camacho appeals his conviction for possession of an illegal dirk or dagger (Pen. Code, former § 12020, subd. (a)(4)), possession of PCP (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subdivision (a)) and one count of active gang participation (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (a)). [1]
Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction for active gang participation because the evidence did not show that he acted in concert with another gang member in possessing the PCP or the knife. In People v. Rodriguez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 1125 (Rodriguez), which was decided after the conclusion of briefing in this case, the California Supreme Court held that section 186.22, subdivision (a) requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant acted with one or more criminal street gang members in committing a felony. Here, although defendant was in the company of a fellow gang member when he was arrested, there is no evidence that his companion jointly possessed the knife or the PCP. Accordingly, as we will discuss, the conviction for active gang participation must be reversed. Our conclusion that the conviction for active gang participation must be reversed for insufficient evidence renders moot defendant’s second contention, that section 654 precludes imposition of an unstayed sentence on the active gang participation count.
Comments on P. v. Camacho