Court Opinion

ID: 9403366
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-20 22:03:27.901119+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:06.603526
License: Public Domain

Filed 6/20/23 P. v. Castillo 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                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,
                                                                                             F085447
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                             (Super. Ct. No. 17CR-00540B)
                    v.

 RICHARD YANEZ CASTILLO, JR.,                                                             OPINION
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT*
         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Mark V.
Bacciarini, Judge.
         Robert Navarro, 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 Detjen,      Acting P. J., Franson, J. and Peña, J.
                                    INTRODUCTION
       A jury convicted defendant Richard Yanez Castillo, Jr., of assault with a deadly
weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1); count 1) with a gang enhancement (§ 186.22,
subd. (b)(1)) and active participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a); count
2) after multiple inmates attacked a fellow inmate in their prison unit. (Undesignated
statutory references are to the Penal Code.) Defendant admitted he had two prior serious
felony convictions within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a)(1) that also
qualified as strike offenses. The court denied defendant’s motion to strike his prior
strikes and sentenced defendant to 25 years to life in prison for the assault conviction.
       This is the third appeal in this matter. Most recently, we remanded for the trial
court to recalculate defendant’s custody credits at the time of resentencing and to prepare
an amended abstract of judgment reflecting that the court struck the section 667,
subdivision (a)(1) prior serious felony enhancements. On remand, the court updated the
abstract of judgment to reflect the stricken section 667, subdivision (a)(1) enhancements.
The custody credits were initially not updated correctly, but the abstract of judgment was
subsequently amended to reflect the appropriate custody credits after defense counsel
wrote the court a letter pursuant to People v. Fares (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 954.
       Appointed counsel for defendant now asks this court to review the record to
determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief
within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed
and we have received no communication from defendant. Finding no arguable error that
would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.
                           FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL
       A jury convicted defendant of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1);
count 1) with a gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)), and active participation in a
criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a); count 2) based on his involvement in a group

                                             2.
attack on a fellow inmate. Defendant admitted he had two prior serious felony
convictions within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a)(1) that also qualified as
strike offenses. The court denied defendant’s motion to strike his prior strikes (People v.
Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497) and sentenced defendant to 25 years to
life in prison for the assault conviction. This term was enhanced by an additional five
years for one prior serious felony enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and another five
years for the gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)), for a total aggregate prison term
of 35 years to life. The court also sentenced defendant to 25 years to life on the
substantive gang conviction (count 2), plus an additional five years for the prior serious
felony enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), which it ordered to run concurrently with
defendant’s sentence for assault (count 1).
       Defendant appealed from the judgment and we previously remanded this matter
for resentencing to permit the trial court to exercise its discretion regarding whether to
dismiss defendant’s prior serious felony enhancements in light of Senate Bill No. 1393
(2017–2018 Reg. Sess.)1 and ordered the court to prepare an amended abstract of
judgment reflecting that the sentence on count 2 is stayed. In all other respects, we
affirmed the judgment. On remand, the court stayed the term on count 2, the active gang
participation conviction, and reimposed the five-year gang enhancement on count 1 for a
total term of 30 years to life. The court stated it was going to dismiss or stay the
punishment on both section 667, subdivision (a)(1) enhancements. The abstract of
judgment listed the section 667, subdivision (a)(1) enhancements as “stayed.”
       Defendant then appealed from his resentencing hearing, arguing the court erred by
staying his section 667, subdivision (a)(1) enhancements because it only had discretion to
strike them. Defendant also asserted the matter should be remanded for the trial court to

       1We further  noted the court erred in initially failing to impose both prior serious felony
enhancements because it did not have discretion at the time of the original sentencing hearing to
strike one of them.

                                                3.
amend the amount of “credit for time-served” listed on the abstract to reflect the amount
of time he had served when he was resentenced, which he asserted was 1,612 days. The
People agreed the court could either impose or dismiss the section 667, subdivision (a)(1)
enhancements and staying them was not an option. They asserted the case should be
remanded for the court to exercise its discretion whether to strike or impose the
enhancements. They also agreed the case should be remanded for the court to calculate
the actual time defendant served in custody and to modify the judgment accordingly. We
again remanded for the trial court to recalculate defendant’s custody credits at the time of
resentencing and to prepare an amended abstract of judgment reflecting the stricken 667,
subdivision (a)(1) enhancements.
       On remand, the court held a hearing on December 2, 2022, during which it struck
the section 667, subdivision (a)(1) enhancements and awarded defendant the following
credits: 607 actual credits and 606 conduct credits for a total of 1,213 total days. The
court ordered an amended abstract of judgment to be sent to the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation. A new abstract of judgment was filed that same day that
reflects the stricken section 667, subdivision (a)(1) enhancements and the following
credit for time served: 601 “Total Credits,” 601 “Actual,” and no “Local Conduct”
credits.
       On February 14, 2023, counsel for defendant wrote the trial court a letter in
accordance with People v. Fares, supra, 16 Cal.App.4th 954, arguing the award of
custody credits was incorrect. Defense counsel indicated he “calculated the actual days
custody from the date of arrest in this case (January 12, 2017) to the resentencing hearing
on remand (December 2, 2022) as 2,151 days.” Counsel submitted “that a probation
report should be prepared which calculates and updates the custody credits to date, and
that the court thereafter issue a corrected minute order and amended abstract of
judgment.” Counsel noted, “conduct credits need not be awarded.”

                                             4.
       On March 3, 2023, the court issued another abstract of judgment that included the
credits orally stated at the December 2, 2022, hearing—607 actual credits and 606
conduct credits for a total of 1,213 total credits. On March 10, 2023, the court ordered
the probation department to prepare a report calculating defendant’s custody credits for
time served in custody to date, though good time credits did not need to be calculated.
The court received a report from the probation department on March 21, 2023, that listed
defendant’s time served as 2,151 days as of the date of resentencing. Accordingly, in a
March 24, 2023, order, the court ordered the preparation of a fourth amended abstract of
judgment that corrects defendant’s custody credits to a total of 2,151 actual days. The
court further directed that “CDCR shall calculate any conduct credits earned.” A new
abstract of judgment reflecting the updated credits was filed on April 24, 2023.
       Counsel now asks us to independently review the record on appeal pursuant to
Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Defendant did not file a supplemental brief
                                      DISCUSSION
       We appointed counsel, who filed an opening brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25
Cal.3d 436, requesting independent review of the record for arguable issues. Appellate
counsel notified defendant that he was filing a Wende brief and informed defendant that
he had 30 days from the filing of the brief to submit any claims, arguments, or issues that
he wished our court to review. Our court also sent defendant a letter notifying him he
could submit a letter stating any grounds on appeal he wanted our court to hear. We have
received no reply from defendant.
       We are satisfied no arguable issues exist and defendant’s counsel has fully
satisfied his responsibilities under Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pages 441–442 and People
v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123–124.
                                     DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                            5.