The California Supreme Court issued two major rulings last week that could reshape how courts handle gang enhancements and sentencing, opening the door for thousands of incarcerated individuals to challenge past convictions.
The state court rulings come as California Governor Gavin Newsom attempts to rehabilitate his image with ‘tough-on-crime’ rhetoric as he fights President Donald Trump deploying additional National Guard troops to his state to deal with violent criminals.
Both California Supreme Court cases hinged on a 2021 law that raised the bar for proving gang involvement in criminal activity. The law, known as the STEP Forward Act, narrowed what prosecutors can argue qualifies as “criminal street gang activity.” In separate split decisions, the state’s highest court applied those new standards retroactively.
The court ruled in a narrow majority to send a case back to trial court to determine whether two defendants’ sentences should be retried under the revised standards. The ruling could provide a legal pathway for others serving lengthy three-strikes sentences to challenge the use of older gang enhancements against them.
Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero dissented, warning that the court had overstepped its role by effectively rewriting sentencing law. She argued that applying the new standard retroactively would make it “virtually impossible” for prosecutors to sustain gang allegations.
“The court has invoked the authority to change the Three Strikes law under the guise of interpreting it,” Guerrero wrote.
In a separate 5-2 decision, the court overturned a death sentence for Orange County defendant Jason Aguirre, remanding the case for further proceedings. Aguirre, convicted in 2009 of murder and attempted murder, was accused of being affiliated with a Vietnamese youth gang called the Dragon Family Junior. Prosecutors argued at the time that Aguirre shot three individuals in 2003 to elevate the gang’s reputation.
The majority upheld the convict’s murder convictions but said his gang enhancements were invalid under the 2021 law. Because jurors were not instructed on the revised legal definition requiring that a gang benefit be more than reputational, the court found a disconnect between the trial evidence and current law.
“With the relevant aspects of Assembly Bill 333 applying retroactively, this disconnect constitutes error affecting defendant’s conviction for active participation in a criminal street gang,” Guerrero wrote for the majority.
Gang enhancements have long been controversial in California. The Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention (STEP) Act of 1988, passed at the height of violent crime in Los Angeles and other urban centers, allowed prosecutors to add sentencing enhancements for crimes committed “to benefit a criminal street gang.” The law was expanded by Proposition 21 in 2000, which toughened penalties and broadened the definition of gang-related crimes.
Over the years, prosecutors used gang enhancements widely, sometimes applying them in cases involving nonviolent felonies. Critics said the enhancements disproportionately targeted minority communities, particularly young men of color, and often relied on thin evidence such as neighborhood associations, tattoos, or clothing. Reform advocates argued the practice encouraged juries to convict based on stereotypes rather than facts.
In 2021, then-Assembly member Sydney Kamlager-Dove of Los Angeles authored the STEP Forward Act to scale back the state’s gang laws. The legislation raised the standard of proof, restricted what prosecutors could present as evidence of gang affiliation, and allowed defendants to request separate proceedings on gang allegations. Supporters said the law was necessary to end what they called decades of overreach that punished people for who they knew and where they lived, rather than what they did.
The California Supreme Court’s latest rulings bring the STEP Forward Act into sharper focus, applying its provisions to past cases rather than only new prosecutions. While the decisions offer hope for defendants with prior gang enhancements, they also raise questions about how broadly courts will apply the rulings and how many cases may be reopened as a result.
Legal analysts say thousands of inmates could now petition to have their cases reviewed. Prosecutors, however, warn that retrying older cases under the tougher evidentiary standards could be difficult, particularly if witnesses are unavailable or memories have faded.
The decisions highlight the ongoing tension between California’s established criminal law and activist judges’ and prosecutors’ push to weaken law enforcement to administer so-called “equity” and “restorative justice.” They also come as California Governor Gavin Newsom attempts to pivot towards the middle ahead of an expected 2028 presidential run.
