ROTHSCHILD, J.
A jury found Jacob Anthony Martinez guilty of robbery and assault with a firearm and the trial court sentenced him to 23 years in prison including a 10-year gang enhancement. The only issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in imposing the gang enhancement. We conclude that the court’s finding that the Westside Wilmas is a “criminal street gang” within the meaning of Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (f), is not supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, we will modify the judgment by striking the gang enhancement and affirming the judgment as modified.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW
The evidence at the guilt phase of Martinez’ trial is not pertinent to his appeal.
After his conviction, the court tried the issue of whether Martinez committed the crimes for the benefit of a criminal street gang. The parties stipulated that Detective Walter McMahon “is an expert and qualified as an expert in the area of the Westside Wilma gang during the relevant time period.”
McMahon testified as follows. Martinez was an active member of the Westside Wilmas at the time he committed the crimes. The Wilmas gang currently has approximately 570 members. During its 50 years of existence, the gang has been “very involved in a lot of criminal activity” including robbery, narcotics sales, unlawful possession of firearms, extortion, car theft, burglaries and rape. Two members of the Wilmas gang committed robberies for the benefit of the gang within the past nine months. Martinez committed this robbery for the benefit of the gang. The court found McMahon’s testimony sufficient to prove that Martinez committed the robbery for the benefit of a criminal street gang.
The court sentenced Martinez to a term of 23 years in prison consisting of three years for the robbery, a consecutive 10-year term for the gang enhancement under Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(B), and a second consecutive 10-year term for the personal use of a firearm in the commission of the crime. The court stayed the sentence on the assault conviction pursuant to section 654.
All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
DISCUSSION
Section 186.22, subdivision (f), defines a “criminal street gang” as an “ongoing organization, association, or group of three or more persons, whether formal or informal, having as one of its primary activities the commission of one or more of the criminal acts enumerated in... subdivision (e)....” (Italics added.) Subdivision (e) lists numerous crimes, including robbery. Martinez contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the court’s finding that the Wilmas met the “primary activities” element of the criminal street gang test. We review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to decide whether substantial evidence supports the court’s sentence enhancement. (In re Alexander L. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 605, 610.)
Martinez also argues that the gang evidence is insufficient because the prosecutor did not lay a foundation for McMahon’s expert testimony. This argument lacks merit because the parties stipulated to McMahon’s expertise and Martinez made no objections to his testimony.
“The phrase ‘primary activities,’ as used in the gang statute, implies that the commission of one or more of the statutorily enumerated crimes be one of the group’s ‘chief’ or ‘principal’ occupations. [Citation.] That definition would necessarily exclude the occasional commission of those crimes by the group’s members.” People v. Sengpadychith (2001) 26 Cal.4th 316, 323.) The “primary activities” element could be satisfied on a showing that the gang “consistently and repeatedly” committed the crimes listed in the gang statute. (Id. at p. 324.)
The evidence of the Wilmas’ “primary activities” is limited to the following. The prosecutor asked McMahon: “What is the focus of [the Wilmas gang] as to what they do crimewise in the area... ?” McMahon responded: “They are very involved in a lot of criminal activity” including robbery and that he knew of two other Wilmas members who had committed robberies within the past nine months.
This testimony was insufficient to establish the “primary activities” element of the street gang enhancement because it offered no specifics as to the number of predicate criminal acts committed by the gang’s members for the benefit of the gang, their frequency or the time period over which they occurred. Evidence that three of the 570 Wilmas committed robberies in the past nine months does not establish that the gang, which had been in existence for 50 years, “consistently and repeatedly” commits these or other crimes listed in the gang statute or that the gang ‘s principal or chief occupation was committing such crimes. Accordingly, we conclude that the prosecution failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove the “primary activities” element of the street gang enhancement.
We further conclude that the gang allegations may not be retried. In People v. Seel (2004) 34 Cal.4th 535, 546-547, our Supreme Court held that when a sentence enhancement “‘is used to describe an increase beyond the maximum authorized statutory sentence, it is the functional equivalent of an element of a greater offense than the one covered by the jury's guilty verdict.’” (Quoting from Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 494.) Relying on Apprendi, the Seel court barred retrial of a premeditation finding supported by insufficient evidence because premeditation is an element of the crime of attempted murder and not a mere sentencing enhancement. (People v. Seel, supra,34 Cal.4th at p. 550.) A defendant is entitled to a jury trial on the elements of an enhancement statute such as section 186.22. (People v. Sengpadychith, supra,26 Cal.4th at p. 327.) By parity of reasoning with Seel, further adjudication on the gang allegation is therefore barred under the doctrine of double jeopardy.
DISPOSITION
The sentence is modified by striking the 10-year street gang enhancement. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
We concur: MALLANO, P. J., JOHNSON, J.