People v. Gonzales CA5

Filed 1/8/26 P. v. Gonzales CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F088558 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F23906810) v.

BENNY BENITO GONZALES, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jonathan B. Conklin, Judge. William Wei Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Dina Petrushenko and Jeffrey D. Firestone, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- Defendant Benny Benito Gonzales was convicted by a jury of assault with a firearm and other offenses after he chased an ex-gang member with a gun and threatened to shoot him. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 19 years in prison. He contends

on appeal insufficient evidence supports his conviction of assault with a firearm. We reject his argument and affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Defendant Benny Benito Gonzales was charged in an information with assault with a firearm (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(2); count 1), making a criminal threat (§ 422; count 2), possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 3), and conspiracy to dissuade a witness (§ 136.1, subd. (c)(2); count 4). He was charged in the same information with a codefendant, Emily Andrade, whose appeal we decided in a separate opinion. (People v. Andrade (July 23, 2025, F087955) [nonpub. opn.].) As to each count, the information alleged that Gonzales committed the offense for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) and that Gonzales personally used a firearm in the commission of counts 1 and 2 (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). The information further alleged that Gonzales had previously suffered a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) as well as a strike conviction under the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)– (d)). The jury convicted Gonzales on counts 1 through 3 and acquitted him on count 4. The jury also found true that he personally used a firearm in the commission of counts 1 and 2. At the conclusion of the next phase of the trial on the gang enhancement allegations, the jury found it true that Gonzales committed each offense for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang. Following the verdicts on the gang allegations, the trial court conducted a court trial and found true two aggravating circumstances.