Filed 10/3/23 P. v. Castaneda CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ISAAC SCOTT CASTANEDA,

Defendant and Appellant.

F085424

(Super. Ct. No. 12-CM-1522HTA)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kings County. Randy L. 

Edwards, Judge.

Victoria H. Stafford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant.

Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and 

Respondent.

-ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Franson, J. and Snauffer, J.
2.

INTRODUCTION

Appellant and defendant Isaac Scott Castaneda (appellant) was convicted after a 

jury trial of premeditated attempted murder with firearm and gang enhancements, and 

sentenced to 25 years plus 45 years to life.

In 2023, the trial court denied appellant’s Penal Code1section 1172.6 petition for 

resentencing. On appeal, appellate counsel filed a brief which summarized the facts and 

procedural history with citations to the record, raised no issues, and asked this court to 

independently review the record pursuant to both People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 

216 and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Appellant submitted a supplemental 

brief raising several issues. We will address his contentions and affirm the trial court’s 

denial of his petition.

PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

On August 6, 2013, a second amended information was filed in the Superior Court 

of Kings County charging appellant with count 1, premeditated attempted murder 

(§§ 664/187, subd. (a)), with personal use and discharge allegations (§12022.53, 

subds. (b), (c)); and count 2, possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)); 

with gang enhancements as to both counts (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) and prior conviction 

allegations. On the same day, appellant’s jury trial began. 

The Jury Instructions

The court instructed the jury on the elements of count 1, attempted murder: “To 

prove that the defendant is guilty of attempted murder, the People must prove that, one, 

the defendant took at least one direct but ineffective step toward killing another person; 

and, two, the defendant intended to kill that person.... A direct step indicates a definite 

and unambiguous intent to kill.” 

1 All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code.
3.

The jury was further instructed that if it convicted appellant of attempted murder,

it had to decide whether he committed the offense “willfully and with deliberation and 

premeditation.” “The defendant acted willfully if he intended to kill when he acted. The 

defendant deliberated if he carefully weighed the considerations for and against his 

choice and knowing the consequences decided to kill. The defendant premeditated if he 

decided to kill before acting.” 

The jury was separately instructed on the elements of count 2, and the firearm and 

gang enhancements. 

The jury was not instructed about principals, aiders and abettors, accomplices, the 

natural and probable consequences doctrine, the felony-murder rule, conspiracy, or any 

theory of imputed malice.

Convictions and Sentence

On August 9, 2013, the jury found appellant guilty of count 1, premeditated 

attempted murder, and count 2, possession of a firearm by a felon. The jury found true 

the personal use and discharge enhancements attached to count 1, and gang 

enhancements for both counts. Appellant admitted the prior conviction allegations. 

On February 13, 2014, the court held the sentencing hearing and imposed an 

aggregate term of 25 years plus 45 years to life, based on 15 years to life for count 1, 

tripled to 45 years to life pursuant to the “Three Strikes” law (§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(A)(i)),

plus 20 years for the section 12022.53, subdivision (c) personal discharge enhancement 

and five years for the prior serious felony enhancement. The court stayed the remaining 

terms and enhancements. 

On appeal this court affirmed the judgment. (People v. Castaneda (Feb. 4, 2016, 

F069066) [nonpub. opn.].) 
4.

PETITION FOR RESENTENCING

On June 27, 2022, appellant filed, in propria persona, a petition for resentencing 

pursuant to section 1172.6 (former § 1170.95 renumbered), and requested appointment of 

counsel. 

Appellant filed a supporting declaration that consisted of a preprinted form where 

he checked boxes that (1) he was eligible for resentencing because a complaint, 

information, or indictment was filed against him that allowed the prosecution to proceed 

under a theory of felony murder, murder under the natural and probable consequences 

doctrine or other theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that 

person’s participation in a crime, or attempted murder under the natural and probable 

consequences doctrine; (2) he was convicted of murder, attempted murder, or 

manslaughter following a trial, or accepted a plea offer in lieu of a trial in which he could 

have been convicted of murder or attempted murder; and (3) he could not presently be 

convicted of murder or attempted murder because of changes made to sections 188 and 

189, effective January 1, 2019. 

On August 2, 2022, the court appointed counsel. 

The People’s Opposition

On September 30, 2022, the People filed opposition and argued appellant was 

ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law because the jury was not instructed on the 

natural and probable consequences theory, and the attempted murder instructions 

required the jury to find appellant acted with the specific intent to kill. 

The Court’s Denial of the Petition

On November 17, 2022, the court held a hearing on appellant’s petition. 

Appellant was present with his attorney, who argued the petition established a prima facie 

case and an evidentiary hearing should be held. The prosecutor replied that appellant was 

ineligible for resentencing because the jury was not instructed on any imputed malice 

theories. 
5.

The court held appellant was ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law: “A 

review of the jury instruction[s] shows that the jury was not instructed by the trial judge 

on either the felony murder or the natural and probable consequences doctrines. [¶] The 

jury received the standard jury instructions for attempt[ed] murder and for 

premeditation.” The court also issued a written order that stated the petition was denied 

for the same reasons. 

On December 9, 2022, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. 

DISCUSSION

As explained above, appellate counsel filed a brief with this court pursuant to 

Wende and Delgadillo. The brief also included counsel’s declaration that appellant was 

advised he could file his own brief with this court. In response to this court’s order, 

appellant filed a supplemental brief. We review appellant’s contentions.

A. Appellant’s arguments about his jury trial.

Appellant asserts that his petition should be granted because he raised the defense 

of “actual innocence,” he was wrongfully convicted, and he has been unlawfully 

incarcerated because his convictions were the result of a “fundamental miscarriage of 

justice.” Appellant further states his family would not have retained private counsel to 

represent him if he had committed the charged offenses. 

Appellant’s claims based on his jury trial and conviction are not cognizable in this 

appeal. “The mere filing of a section [1172.6] petition does not afford the petitioner a 

new opportunity to raise claims of trial error or attack the sufficiency of the evidence 

supporting the jury’s findings. To the contrary, ‘[n]othing in the language of 

section [1172.6] suggests it was intended to provide redress for allegedly erroneous prior 

factfinding.... The purpose of section [1172.6] is to give defendants the benefit of 

amended sections 188 and 189 with respect to issues not previously determined, not to 

provide a do-over on factual disputes that have already been resolved.’ ” (People v.
6.

Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942, 947; People v. DeHuff (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 428, 

438.)

B. Appellant’s arguments about his petition.

“The record of conviction will necessarily inform the trial court’s prima facie 

inquiry under section [1172.6], allowing the court to distinguish petitions with potential 

merit from those that are clearly meritless.” (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 

971.) The record of conviction includes the jury instructions. (People v. Williams (2022) 

86 Cal.App.5th 1244, 1251–1252; People v. Offley (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 588, 599; 

People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 50, 54-55.)

Appellant contends he was not the actual shooter or an aider and abettor. The jury 

was instructed that to find appellant guilty of attempted murder, it had to find he took a 

direct but ineffective step toward killing another person, and that he “intended to kill that 

person.... A direct step indicates a definite and unambiguous intent to kill.” “Attempted

murder requires the specific intent to kill and the commission of a direct but ineffectual

act toward accomplishing the intended killing.” (People v. Lee (2003) 31 Cal.4th 613, 

623; People v. Perez (2010) 50 Cal.4th 222, 224.) The instructions establish that 

appellant was convicted as the actual shooter who acted with the intent to kill, and not as 

an aider and abettor.

Appellant asserts he was convicted based on the natural and probable 

consequences doctrine. As set forth above, however, the jury in this case was not 

instructed on that doctrine or any theory of imputed malice.

Appellant next declares that “[a]ll instructions to the jury were invalid” because 

the instructions permitted the jury to convict him based on imputed malice. The jury was 

not instructed on any theory of imputed malice.

Appellant asserts the statutory procedures regarding the admission of evidence at 

an evidentiary hearing under section 1172.6 violate his due process right to prove his 

actual innocence. Appellant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing because he failed 
7.

to establish the prima facie showing required by section 1172.6 since he was ineligible 

for resentencing as a matter of law.

Finally, appellant requests this court to independently review the record because 

the court summarily denied his petition and violated his due process rights. The court did 

not summarily deny his petition. The court complied with section 1172.6 and appointed 

counsel, provided for further briefing, conducted a hearing on the petition, heard 

arguments from the parties, stated reasons for issuing its order to deny the petition, and 

filed an order that restated those reasons. (§1172.6, subds. (b), (c).) The trial court 

correctly found appellant was ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law.

DISPOSITION

The court’s order of November 17, 2022, denying appellant’s section 1172.6 

petition for resentencing, is affirmed.