Melchor v. Superior Court CA4/2 (2023) · DecisionDepot
Melchor v. Superior Court CA4/2
California Court of Appeal Dec 5, 2023 No. E082337Unpublished
Filed 12/5/23 Melchor v. Superior Court CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
RUDY MELCHOR,
Petitioner, E082337
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF2202159)
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
Respondent;
THE PEOPLE,
Real Party in Interest.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of prohibition. David A. Gunn,
Judge. Petition granted.
Steven L. Harmon, Public Defender, William A. Meronek, Deputy Public
Defender, for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
1
Michael A. Hestrin, District Attorney, and Laura J. Watts, Deputy District
Attorney, for Real Party in Interest.
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner and defendant Rudy Melchor seeks a writ of prohibition compelling the
superior court to grant his motion to dismiss the following allegations and special
& (g).) “Examples of a common benefit that are more than reputational may include, but
are not limited to, financial gain or motivation, retaliation, targeting a perceived or actual
gang rival, or intimidation or silencing of a potential current or previous witness or
informant.” (§ 186.22, subd. (g).)
Here, Melchor argues the 2021 predicate for gun possession does not meet the
requirements of section 186.22, subdivisions (e) and (g). The gang expert testified that
gun possession would benefit a gang by providing protection from rival gang members
and increasing intimidation in the community. However, there is no evidence to suggest
that the gun in the 2021 predicate was used to commonly protect the gang rather than for
personal protection, and any reputational benefit derived from gun possession does not
meet the amended requirements of section 186.22, subdivisions (e) and (g). (People v.
Renteria (2022) 13 Cal.5th 951, 968.) The People concede this position. As such, it is
appropriate to grant the relief requested. (Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th
1232, 1241.)
5
DISPOSITION
Let a peremptory writ of prohibition issue, directing the respondent superior court
to vacate its September 28, 2023, order denying Melchor’s motion to dismiss and enter a
new and different order consistent with this opinion. When this decision becomes final,
the stay of proceedings in the trial court shall be lifted.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER J. We concur:
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
RAPHAEL J.
6
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court granted a writ of prohibition directing the superior court to dismiss gang-related enhancements and special circumstances because the prosecution failed to satisfy the heightened evidentiary requirements for predicate offenses under Penal Code section 186.22 as amended by Assembly Bill No. 333.
Issues
Whether the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing satisfied the requirements of Penal Code section 186.22, as amended by Assembly Bill No. 333, regarding predicate offenses and gang benefit.
Disposition. granted
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The People filed a response conceding Melchor is entitled to relief.”
“any reputational benefit derived from gun possession does not meet the amended requirements of section 186.22, subdivisions (e) and (g).”