California v. Bermudez
Annotate this CaseTwo appeals of two jury trials of defendant Adolfo Rodriguez Bermudez came before the Court of Appeal. The first trial involved the possession of a concealed dirk; the second involved an assault with a deadly weapon with a vehicle done to benefit a gang. Defendant was sentenced to a 21-year four-month aggregate term. On appeal, defendant argued: (1) the statute defining a dirk was unconstitutionally vague; (2) the trial court erred in allowing two officers to testify to the legal definition of a dirk; (3) a gang expert provided improper opinion testimony that defendant committed a crime to benefit a gang; and (4) insufficient evidence established the existence of a criminal street gang under Penal Code section 186.22 because testimony concerning the predicate felonies was admitted in violation of California v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (2016). In supplemental briefing, defendant further contended: (5) remand was required so the trial court may consider exercising its discretion under Senate Bill No. 1393 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1013, §§ 1-2) (SB 1393); and (6) the imposition of fines and fees violated his right to due process and freedom from excessive fines under California v. Duenas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (2019). In the published portion of its opinion, the Court held the dirk statute was not unconstitutionally vague. The Court also held that a gang expert’s testimony about gang enhancement predicate offenses did not violate Sanchez, so long as the predicate offenses did not involve defendant or individuals involved in the defendant’s case. “Such predicate offenses are chapters in a gang’s biography and constitute historical background information, not case-specific information.” The Court remanded the case to allow the trial court to consider exercising its discretion under SB 1393. During that remand, as the State conceded, defendant may request a hearing on his ability to pay.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.