In re Quiroz CA4/3

California Court of Appeal Feb 6, 2026 No. G064955Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a trial court is required to impose the mandatory gang enhancement dictated by the nature of the underlying felony under Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1), regardless of whether the prosecution erroneously charged a different subdivision, provided the defendant had notice of the factual basis for the enhancement.

Issues

Whether a trial court may impose a gang enhancement under Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(B) when the information erroneously cited subdivision (b)(1)(A).
Whether the imposition of an uncharged gang enhancement violates a defendant's due process right to fair notice.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the enhancement applicable to a given felony that is committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang “is not a matter of prosecutorial charging discretion or a sentencing choice available to the trial court.””

Filed 2/6/26 In re Quiroz CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re SERGIO QUIROZ G064955

on Habeas Corpus. (Super. Ct. No. 02CF3148)

OPINION

Original proceedings; petition for a writ of habeas corpus after a judgment from the Superior Court of Orange County, Andre Manssourian, Judge. Petition denied. Request for Judicial Notice. Granted. Sergio Quiroz, in pro. per.; Aaron J. Schechter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher P. Beeseley and Evan Stele, Deputy Attorneys General, for Respondent.

In this habeas proceeding, petitioner Sergio Quiroz challenges a five-year sentence enhancement he received for committing a serious felony for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Quiroz contends the enhancement was unauthorized and its imposition violated his right to fair notice of the charges. We disagree and deny his petition. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2004, Quiroz was convicted of attempted premeditated murder, making a criminal threat, and two counts of street terrorism. (Pen. 1 Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664, subd. (a), 422, 186.22, subd. (a).) The jury also found true allegations Quiroz discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury and acted for the benefit of a criminal street gang. (§§ 12022.53, subd. (d), 186.22, subd. (b)(1).) The trial court sentenced him to 40 years to life in prison, plus a concurrent term of 11 years that included a five-year gang enhancement on the criminal threat count. The judgment was affirmed on appeal. (People v. Quiroz (Jan. 27, 2005, G034245) [nonpub. opn.].)2 In 2024, Quiroz filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the five-year gang enhancement, which the trial court had imposed pursuant to section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(B). As Quiroz correctly points out in his petition, that particular subdivision was never alleged in any of the charging documents. The complaint and original information

In re Quiroz CA4/3

AI Brief

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

OPINION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

GOODING, J.

SANCHEZ, ACTING P. J.

SCOTT, J.

AI Brief