Key question: What is the California STEP Act and how does it affect gang-related sentencing?
Short answer: Darren Chaker explains the California STEP Act under Penal Code 186.22, covering gang enhancement penalties, prosecution requirements, and how courts apply sentence enhancements for gang-related criminal activity.
The California STEP Act, codified under Penal Code § 186.22, stands for the California Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act. This statute targets gang-related criminal activity across the state. Legal researcher Darren Chaker notes that the California STEP Act imposes additional penalties for crimes committed in association with a criminal street gang. As a result, the primary goal of the California STEP Act is to deter gang activity by enhancing sentences for those convicted of gang-related offenses.
In 1988, the California Legislature enacted the California STEP Act to eradicate criminal gang activity. Specifically, the law focuses on patterns of gang activity and the organized nature of street gangs. ( Pen. Code, § 186.21.) In addition, California’s legal framework under Penal Code § 186.22 criminalizes participation and support of criminal street gangs. Furthermore, the California STEP Act imposes harsher sentences for crimes committed as part of gang activities. Consequently, these provisions aim to deter gang-related crime and promote public safety.
Under the California STEP Act, a defendant faces enhanced penalties when the prosecution proves the crime benefited a criminal street gang. Moreover, the prosecutor must show intent to promote or assist criminal conduct by gang members. ( § 186.22(b) ). People v. Hill (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 770, 774, 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 875
Gang enhancements under the California STEP Act and Penal Code § 186.22 can significantly increase sentencing severity. For example, a defendant convicted of a gang-related felony may face 1 to 3 additional years in state prison. Moreover, serious or violent felony convictions carry enhancements of 5, 10, or even 15 years to life in prison.
For misdemeanor offenses, the court may impose up to one year in county jail. Additionally, the California STEP Act allows forfeiture of assets tied to gang-related activities. This provision further emphasizes the law’s punitive nature.
Defending against gang enhancements requires a strong understanding of the California STEP Act. Common defenses challenge whether the defendant actually belongs to a gang. In addition, defense attorneys often dispute whether the crime was truly gang-related. For instance, in People v. Gardeley, the court stressed the need to prove active gang participation. The prosecution also must show that the crime directly benefited the gang.
Another key defense targets the credibility of prosecution expert witnesses. Gang experts often testify about gang culture, symbols, and activities. However, defense attorneys can challenge their opinions during cross-examination. Furthermore, defendants may argue that the crime had no gang connection. They can also assert that they lacked intent to promote gang activity.
Legal researcher Darren Chaker highlights several landmark cases that shaped the interpretation of Penal Code § 186.22.
In 2010, a California Court of Appeal examined whether the jury heard prejudicial evidence. The court addressed the defendant’s Due Process rights in People v. Albillar, 51 Cal.4th 47, 119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 415, 244 P.3d 1062 (Cal. 2010). Notably, the court held that when a defendant commits a felony with known gang members, the jury may infer specific intent to assist criminal gang conduct.
In 2021, the court found that substantive changes from Assembly Bill 333 apply retroactively. These changes raised the threshold for conviction under the California STEP Act. People v. Lopez, 73 Cal.App.5th 327, 288 Cal. Rptr. 3d 463 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021). Importantly, The STEP Forward Act targets damage that gang enhancements cause to families. AB 333 narrowed the definition of a common benefit, requiring it to be “more than reputational.” (§ 186.22, subd. (g).)
As a result, the California Supreme Court ruled the prosecution now carries a higher burden of proof. The court found that AB 333 altered requirements for proving a pattern of criminal gang activity. (Lopez, at p. 345)
In 2022, the California Supreme Court reviewed a death penalty case in People v. Tran, 13 Cal.5th 1169, 298 Cal. Rptr. 3d 150, 515 P.3d 1210 (Cal. 2022). The court held that amendments to the California STEP Act gang enhancement applied retroactively.
Also in 2022, the court clarified when the California STEP Act applies to a lone gang member. In People v. Renteria, 13 Cal.5th 951, 957 (Cal. 2022), the court noted that gang members can commit crimes for personal reasons, not gang purposes.
The most recent California Supreme Court ruling came in 2024. The court found that prosecutors must establish a clear nexus between offenses and the gang. Without this connection, the evidence fails to support a gang enhancement. The court reversed the conviction in People v. Clark, 318 Cal. Rptr. 3d 152, 166 (Cal. 2024).
The California STEP Act has deeply shaped the state’s criminal justice system since its enactment. By imposing harsher penalties on gang-related crimes, the law aims to dismantle criminal street gangs. However, critics argue that the California STEP Act disproportionately affects minority communities. In particular, opponents contend it can lead to over-policing in certain neighborhoods.
One controversial aspect involves the California STEP Act’s broad definition of a criminal street gang. Under Penal Code § 186.22, a gang includes any ongoing group of three or more persons with a common name or symbol. Critics call this definition overly inclusive. As a result, it may ensnare individuals with minimal or no gang involvement.
Despite these criticisms, the California STEP Act remains a powerful prosecution tool. The law’s focus on intent and association has led to numerous convictions. Meanwhile, defense attorneys continue to challenge its application. They especially target cases where gang involvement evidence appears weak or circumstantial.
Those prosecuted under the California STEP Act gang enhancement often face strict probation conditions after release. For instance, courts commonly require GPS tracking. Similarly, parole officers enforce comparable restrictions.
Ultimately, Legal Researcher Darren Chaker finds that Penal Code § 186.22 and the California STEP Act play a critical role in combating gang-related crime. Understanding these laws is essential for both prosecutors and defense attorneys. Therefore, anyone facing gang enhancement allegations should seek experienced legal representation to navigate the California STEP Act’s complexities.
For almost two decades Darren Chaker regularly has worked with defense attorneys and high net worth people on a variety of sensitive issues from Los Angeles to Dubai. With a gift of knowledge about the First Amendment and big firm expertise in brief research and writing, Darren Chaker puts his knowledge to use for law firms and non-profit organizations.