Cases against gangs spike in first quarter

SAN BERNARDINO - After years of declining numbers, gang prosecutions in the county appear to be on the rise in the first quarter of the year, according to new statistics the San Bernardino County D.A.'s office released this week.
For the first quarter of 2012, prosecutors filed 337 gang-related cases countywide, a 61 percent increase from the 209 cases filed in the first quarter of 2011 and the strongest first-quarter going as far back as 2006.

That's when District Attorney Michael A. Ramos declared war on street gangs in front of the County Government Center with the Board of Supervisors, then-Sheriff Gary Penrod and local police chiefs.

Since then, authorities appear to be gaining ground on them, at least in the first quarter.

Ramos' said his office has kept up the fight against gangs, filing thousands of gang cases, seeking injunctions and fighting their appeals.

Also in the first quarter of 2012, prosecutors secured 135 state prison sentences worth a combined total of 1,282 years in state prison.

Four defendants were found guilty in jury trials."It's a priority for me. I've never cut back, and I'm going to continue that fight," Ramos said. "We're going to take the neighborhoods back."

In a county that ranks third in the nation for its population of gang members, prosecutors can't afford to let up the pressure.

A recent FBI report showed 40,558 gang members called San Bernardino County home.

Since Ramos' gang program began in July 2005, a total of 7,013 cases have been filed. Two defendants were committed to death row. Prosecutors secured 4,255 state prison commitments for 29,210 years in state prison and 136 life terms.

Prosecutors say 241 defendants were found guilty by a jury trial, and juries have found "true" 1,529 gang enhancements - another way of saying that a jury agreed that crimes were committed in connection with a street gang.

Ramos credits his prosecutors, staff and law enforcement partnerships for the successs. He has 18 prosecutors devoted to gang cases countywide. The Central San Bernardino office has six prosecutors, while offices in Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana and Victorville each have three. The Barstow office has one gang prosecutor, and there are none in the Chino and Joshua Tree offices.

Most recently, the District Attorney's Office has served papers on gangs in Rialto and Rancho Cucamonga to seek injunctions. Injunctions are already in place in Colton, San Bernardino and Victorville.

While an increase in first-quarter numbers could mean a big year for gang crimes, the overall case numbers have gradually been sliding downward.

The total number of gang cases filed in 2011 was 845, there were 953 in 2010 and 1,231 in 2009.

Local gang experts have credited law enforcement agencies with taking a lot of gang leadership off the streets and prosecutors securing convictions against those leaders in court.

But law enforcement agencies are not letting up their efforts.

Ramos has a four-phase protocol to tackle gang violence, he said.

The first phase is suppression, then assisting and relocating witnesses. The third phase is gang injunctions, followed by prevention and intervention.

"We refuse to back down in our fight against gangs in San Bernardino County," Ramos said in a statement. "The people in our gang units, from our attorneys to support staff, are fully committed to running the gangs out of this county. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I will not allow these local terrorists to run our streets. Not on my watch."

I wonder if they really thought that they would curve the gang issue in SB forever or if they was just wishin on a falling star. The next generation of bangers is growing fast and they will be far worse then before. There's no guidance in the streets for the BG's so they will run shit the way they want to and we all know how that will end up. Im not sayin that they are or will be more deadly then before, but I am sayin that they will be a lot more stupid with there decisions. An example of that is ole boy who shot and killed that lil baby Nylah and injured the others. Or them youngsters who killed baby boy in the Gardens. It's a never ending cycle, u locc up the OG'S and nobdy is there to teach the youngsters how to handle business right. I hope that Ramos dnt think that the next generation of bangers is gonna listen to his ass. Ainta gonna happen!!!

Federal authorities have indicted 12 alleged gang members in San Bernardino County, accusing them of a major role in the county's narcotics trade.

The defendants are alleged to be members of the California Garden Crips and the Delmann Heights Bloods -– both longtime San Bernardino gangs on the city’s west side. Nine were arrested Thursday morning, one was already in custody and two more remained at large.

The indictment culminated a year-long undercover investigation in which informants allegedly bought marijuana, methamphetamine and crack cocaine from the defendants in San Bernardino and Rialto, according to a federal indictment.

If convicted, seven defendants face a maximum sentence of life in prison; another five face sentences of up to 40 years in prison, authorities said.

Those indicted in the case are: Steve Martin, 42, of Moreno Valley: Willie Oliver, 43, of San Bernardino; Robert Stockling, 50, of Moreno Valley; Corey Flowers, 33, of Perris; Tyrone Flowers, 41, of Riverside; Taron Anderson, 40, of San Bernardino; Ernest Darby, 38, of San Bernardino; Calrissian Carter, 31, of San Bernardino; Brian Thomas, 37, of Loma Linda; Corey James, 32, of Fontana; David Jackson, 41, of Rialto; Leon Miles, 41, of Highland.
Anderson was already in custody. All the others are in custody except Thomas and Jackson, who were still being sought.

The investigation was conducted by federal agencies -- the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives -– together with San Bernardino police and San Bernardino County sheriff’s deputies.

This exactly what I mean, they face life or 40 years in prison for drug trafficking??? That is super fuccin harsh. Drugs aren't something people should be spending there lifes in prison for. And even though some of those named wouldn't want to make a difference and these youngsters lifes, I know that atleast a couple would. But how the fucc can they make a difference from the pen??? They better get ready for the next niggaz who will step up and take these guys place cuz I can promise u that drugs wont be the only thing they will be servin if u catch my drift. No guidance no peace. The max anybody should be gettin for anything other then violent crimes, or rape is 10 years no more then that. Some of them prolly will get that or close to it but lets be real about it, they will try to locc all these niggaz up for as long as they can just because they can.

Damn....where are these atricles from dstrm? They did a major bust on DH a couple years back in the operation seville....and now this....damn. I agree, 40 years is a gross exaggeration for drugs.

I just come across them doin research for the gang arrest section im working on. This hasn't even hit the sun newspaper yet which I read everyday. The LA Times is where it came from tho, go figure.

Life in prison for non-violent "crimes" is bullshit. It's a real shame that people in this country put up with such savage laws. Put somebody in a cage because they sold a drug to someone else. Terrible.

My ONLY problem with the time they give black and brown is that they dont give white people the same kind of time for the same shit on the regular. I'm a firm believer that if i do the crime, i'll do the time, but there are other issues at play here in certain communities in which they PRIMARILY serve these obnoxious laws down into.

The war on drugs has racist roots. No conspiracy, you can look up the actual quotes of congressmen when they were making weed illegal.

The war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on terror, whatever government war being waged- have always bad consequences specific groups.

That's real shit, how can they justify any of those wars when our own goverment is the reason we face all of those problems. Maybe they should start a war on corrupt shit in our system and see how things end up. I think a lot of people in America feel them same right not. Things are changing for the worse and people are gettin sic of it. Society will not stand for injustice and intolerance forever, I know I wont.

Most of these dudes come to SB after getting jammed up thinking they came to a safer city

A jury convicted defendant, Nathaniel Carter, of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187, subd. (a)),[1] during which he discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)) and used a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)) and assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b)), during which he used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). He was sentenced to prison for 29 years and appeals claiming two instructions were erroneously given. We reject his contentions and affirm.
Facts
Defendant went to an apartment occupied by the victim and other family members and knocked on the door. The victim thought defendant was a neighbor and opened the door. Defendant asked to use the telephone, then the bathroom, which the victim allowed him to do. When defendant emerged from the bathroom, he pulled out a gun, pointed it at the victim and fired. The gun grazed the victim’s left ear and scalp. The two men scuffled and the victim’s brother and father came down from upstairs to assist the victim. The brother stabbed defendant in the back with a knife and the father grabbed defendant and pulled him into the kitchen, during which defendant dropped the gun. The victim picked it up and hit him with it.
Issues and Discussion
1. Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions, CALCRIM No. 362
Over defendant’s objection, the jury was given CALCRIM No. 362, which provides, “If the defendant made a false or misleading statement relating to the charged crime, knowing the statement was false, or intending to mislead, that conduct may show he was aware of his guilt of the crime and you may consider it in determining his guilt. [¶] If you conclude that the defendant made the statement, it is up to you to decide its meaning and importance. However, evidence that the defendant made such a statement cannot prove guilt by itself.”
Defendant was interviewed ten days after the crimes. At the beginning of the interview, the police informed defendant that a $675,000 warrant had been issued for his arrest for attempted murder. Defendant asserted that he was the victim. Defendant questioned why a warrant had been issued for him when he was the one who got shot or got shot at. Then he changed it to that he got stabbed. Defendant again asserted that he was the victim. He said that he was the only one in the victim’s apartment that was injured. He said he got injured by the victim letting him in to use the phone. He said he used the phone, then “got his ass whooped” by the people in the apartment. He denied using the bathroom. He denied having a gun on him when he went into the apartment. He then said, “I’m the one that was hit with the gun” when he tried to leave the apartment. He repeated that he was the victim. He said he got stabbed because they started fighting him. He denied he started fighting them. He said, “I didn’t do nothing. I’m the victim.” He said the only mistake he made was going into the apartment. He twice said, “I didn’t do nothin’ with the gun.” Then he admitted that he brought a gun there by saying that he left it there because he was getting beaten up.[2] He then volunteered that no one died from the gun and no one got grazed and he said he was sure about this. When the police told him that he was lucky the victim did not die, he said that the victim “didn’t even get touched by my gun.”
Every statement the defendant made above, except for the two that are italicized, is a lie. Therefore, contrary to defendant’s assertion, there was an evidentiary basis for the giving of this instruction. Defendant’s assertion that the fact that he changed his story and admitted to bringing the gun to the apartment meant that the instruction was inappropriate is incorrect. (See People v. Carrington (2009) 47 Cal.4th 145, 188.)
Defendant takes issue with the fact that during his argument to the jury, the prosecutor applied this instruction to defendant’s statements during the interview that he did not bring a gun (although he later admitted that he did), that he was the victim and that he was stabbed just because he was let into the apartment. We note that defendant did not object to the prosecutor’s remarks, and, therefore, waived the matter. (People v. Foster (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1301, 1354.) Moreover, defendant did lie when he asserted that he had not brought a gun to the apartment and that he was stabbed just because he went there. Defendant argues that it was improper for the jury instruction to be used as to his assertions that he was the victim, because, in his mind, he was. However, it was for the jury to determine, according to the provisions of the instruction, whether this was a lie and, if so, its meaning and importance. Certainly, there was a basis for reasonable jurors to conclude that these assertions of victimization were false, therefore it was not improper for the prosecutor to make this argument. Finally, the prosecutor argued, again without objection from defendant, that defendant volunteered that no one got grazed. The prosecutor argued that this suggested that defendant knew the victim had gotten grazed, which, of course, made the statement false. This was a rational inference to derive, from the evidence, and, therefore, it was not error for the prosecutor to argue it to the jury.
Defendant also asserts that CALCRIM No. 362 should not be given because it is an argumentative pinpoint instruction that singles out particular evidence and suggests that the jury draw inferences favorable to the prosecution from it. However, defendant also acknowledges that the California Supreme Court has rejected this position in People v. Page (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1, 49, 50.[3] We are bound by Page. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450.)
2. CALCRIM No. 372
Over defense objection, the jury was given CALCRIM No. 372, which provides, “If the defendant fled immediately after the crime was committed, that conduct may show that he was aware of his guilt. If you conclude that defendant fled, it is up to you to decide the meaning and importance of that conduct. However, evidence that the defendant fled cannot prove guilt by itself.”
The crimes occurred around 2:00 a.m. on October 5, 2008 on Bonnie View Drive in Rialto. At 2:23 a.m. the same day a police officer received a call to go to an apartment on South Linden in Rialto, where defendant was. An officer testified that Metrolink tracks separated the two locations, that they were approximately 100 yards apart, and he showed the jury on a map where the two were.
As with CALCRIM No. 362, defendant claims that this instruction is an impermissibly argumentative pinpoint directive, although he concedes that the Supreme Court has rejected this argument. (People v. Navarette (2003) 30 Cal.4th 458, 502 (Navarette).)[4] We are bound by Navarette.
Defendant points out that CALCRIM No. 362 contains language that its predecessor, which was approved by the California Supreme Court in Navarette, did not. Specifically, CALCRIM No. 362 talks about flight immediately “after the crime was committed.” However, CALJIC No. 2.52, which was addressed in Navarette, addressed flight “after the commission of a crime.” (Former CALJIC No. 2.52) We detect no difference between the two.
Defendant also asserts that there was an insufficient evidentiary basis for the instruction. We disagree. “A flight instruction is proper where the evidence shows a defendant departed the crime scene under circumstances suggesting his movement was motivated by a consciousness of guilt.” (McWhorter, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 376.) Citing several cases, defendant asserts that simply because he went home after the crimes, his departure from the scene should not be construed as suggesting consciousness of guilt. However, defendant was severely wounded and bleeding badly. For him to “just go home” rather than staying where he was (or nearby) and asking someone to call 911 so he could receive the medical care he so urgently needed suggested a consciousness of guilt. Moreover, it was for the jury to determine, under the provisions of the instruction, whether defendant fled, and, if so, what meaning and importance this had.

VICTORVILLE • A Hesperia man was sentenced to five years in state prison Tuesday for a stabbing that authorities believe was a gang initiation for a white supremacist group.

Kyle Lee Smither, 21, accepted the prosecution’s offer and pleaded guilty to one count of attempted murder. Victorville Superior Court Judge Lynn Poncin accepted the plea agreement and sentenced him immediately.

San Bernardino County Sheriff’s officials said the victim was chosen at random and had no ties to any of the three men involved in the attack.

Smither and Mark Edward Block were arrested Jan. 19 for the attack, in which Smither’s brother was accidentally stabbed, officials said.

Block — who was recently released from prison and reportedly has ties to a white supremacy gang — learned Smither’s brother had gotten a gang tattoo and became upset since the brother hadn’t earned it, sources close to the investigation said.

They drove down 10th Avenue near Eucalyptus Street in Hesperia and spotted a Hispanic man in his 50s working in his front yard and, according to sources, the brothers jumped out of the vehicle and attacked the man, stabbing him several times and slashing his throat.

During the incident, Smither accidentally slashed his brother’s leg, causing the attacker to bleed profusely. Smither's younger brother was taken to a local hospital where he was last listed in stable condition.

Prosecutors said there wasn’t enough independent evidence to charge Block or the injured Smither brother, but said if new information comes out, that could change.

The victim's condition was not released, although authorities said he is expected to survive.

Even though the cases aren't exactly alike, they are very close to it. The fact is the gang ignitiation is a little worse in the laws eyes. All the cases I know that people killed or attempted to kill somebody as a ignitiation ended up with them serving atleast 20 year sentences. Fact is when a person of color kills or attempts to kill somebody it's a savage crime that deserves justice, let the judge and jury tell it. But when it's not a minority committing the crime namely hispanics and blaccs, it was a mistake and the person deserves a second chance at life. Fucc that, this was a hate crime, throw the book at these niggaz like they doin with the dudes from the CG's and DHB. 5 fuccin years? They basically let him get his bones and now when he gets out he can recruit more suprimacist and repeat what he's learned. I not sayin that u deserve to get life for attempted murder, im just sayin do what you do to one to everyone or dont do it at all. This shit makes me sic to my stomach, I guess it's ok to do shit like this as long as u pull a mike jaxx b4 u do it. Let that be a lesson to everybody, if u wanna get away wit it, fucc johnny Cocran, buy some white out.

Hazzard909 wrote:Most of these dudes come to SB after getting jammed up thinking they came to a safer city

Few actually make the decision to come out here because they're under that impression. In the past, they came here because they thought it was unstaked area, ready for the picking. I would say a major portion of transplants were/are here because they were paroled here, because of much cheaper living costs, or because they have heat on them back at home. For the ones thinking safety, and usually it''s out of genuine ignorance....they have something else coming at them. It must be upsetting to find out you've stepped out of the fire and into the frying pan.