The California Supreme Court reversed gang enhancement allegations and vacated the death sentence for Refugio Ruben Cardenas in a unanimous decision issued Sept. 4, 2025. The court found error in gang-related findings based on two significant legal developments that occurred after Cardenas's original trial.
Justice Kruger authored the opinion, joined by Chief Justice Guerrero and Justices Corrigan, Liu, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans. The decision addresses case S151493, which came to the high court on automatic appeal from Tulare County Superior Court.
Cardenas was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of Gerardo Cortez and the attempted murders of Jorge Montez and Quirino Rosales. A jury found true a special circumstance allegation that Cardenas was an active participant in a criminal street gang and intentionally killed Cortez to further gang activities under Penal Code section 190.2, subdivision (a)(22).
The jury also found true multiple sentence enhancement allegations, including that Cardenas committed all three crimes for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang under Penal Code section 186.22, subdivisions (b)(1)(C) and (4). The trial court entered judgment on the jury's death verdict.
The California Supreme Court identified two post-trial legal developments that undermined the gang-related findings. First, the court cited its 2016 decision in *People v. Sanchez*, 63 Cal.4th 665, which established new limitations on expert testimony regarding gang evidence. The *Sanchez* decision restricted how prosecutors can present certain types of hearsay evidence through gang expert witnesses.
Second, the court referenced recent amendments to Penal Code section 186.22 made by Assembly Bill 333, which was enacted during the 2021-2022 legislative session. Assembly Bill 333 significantly modified the legal standards for proving gang enhancements, requiring prosecutors to demonstrate additional elements beyond what was required at the time of Cardenas's trial.
The combination of these legal changes created reversible error in the gang-related findings that supported both the sentence enhancements and the special circumstance allegation. The gang-murder special circumstance was particularly significant because it made Cardenas eligible for the death penalty.
"We find error in the gang-related findings based on two legal developments that occurred after trial," the court wrote, specifically citing the *Sanchez* decision and Assembly Bill 333 amendments.
The court's decision requires reversal of the gang enhancements, the gang-murder special circumstance, and the death judgment. This effectively removes the legal basis for the death sentence, as the gang special circumstance was necessary to make the case capital-eligible.
The opinion also indicates that the court will address additional constitutional issues on remand. Specifically, the court noted that a limited remand is appropriate to permit Cardenas to develop his claim that trial counsel violated his Sixth Amendment right of autonomy over the defense, citing the Supreme Court's 2018 decision in *McCoy v. Louisiana*.
The *McCoy* decision established that defense attorneys cannot concede a defendant's guilt in a capital case over the defendant's objection, as this violates the defendant's constitutional right to maintain innocence. This suggests potential issues with how Cardenas's defense was conducted during the penalty phase.
The case reflects ongoing changes in California gang prosecution law. Assembly Bill 333 was part of broader criminal justice reforms aimed at addressing concerns that gang enhancements were being applied too broadly and disproportionately affecting certain communities.
The *Sanchez* decision similarly reflected the California Supreme Court's effort to ensure that gang expert testimony meets proper evidentiary standards. Before *Sanchez*, gang experts could testify about case-specific hearsay in ways that potentially violated defendants' confrontation rights.
For Cardenas, the reversal means his case will return to the trial court level for further proceedings. Prosecutors will need to decide whether to retry the case without the gang allegations or seek to prove the gang elements under the new legal standards established by Assembly Bill 333.
The decision demonstrates how changes in criminal law can affect pending cases, even those that have proceeded through trial and initial appeals. California's automatic appeal process for death penalty cases means that such legal developments often impact capital cases years after the original convictions.
The Tulare County case originated in the Superior Court under case number VCF117251 before reaching the state's highest court. The automatic appeal process ensures that all death sentences receive review by the California Supreme Court, regardless of whether defendants actively pursue appeals.
While the court reversed the death sentence and gang-related findings, the opinion does not appear to challenge the underlying murder and attempted murder convictions, suggesting those may remain intact pending further proceedings.