Can a qualifying offence under section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1) of the California Criminal Code be used to prove a pattern of criminal activity?

In People v. Bragg, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th 1385, as in this case, one of the two predicate offenses on which the jury was instructed was not an enumerated offense under section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1). (Id. at p. 1400.) Nevertheless, the court in Bragg held that the error was harmless because the jury found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of attempted murder and that current qualifying offense could be used to prove the requisite pattern of criminal activity for purposes of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1). "The first predicate offense . . . was uncontested and there is no question the jury found the commission of that offense true beyond a reasonable doubt. . . . And the jury necessarily found a second predicate offense, the commission of these attempted murders, true beyond a reasonable doubt by virtue of the jury's conviction of defendant for those underlying crimes. We are able to hold therefore that the trial court's instructional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." (Id. at p. 1401.)