Court Opinion

ID: 9651966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:04:44.943208+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:27.958803
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/23/23 P. v. Casillas CA2/6
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                         DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,                                                                2d Crim. No. B324086
                                                                        (Super. Ct. No. 2014018724.)
     Plaintiff and Respondent,                                               (Ventura County)

v.

MARCO ANTONIO CASILLAS,

     Defendant and Appellant.

       Marco Antonio Casillas appeals from an order entered after
the trial court’s denial of his motion for resentencing pursuant to
Penal Code section 1172.6 (formerly section 1170.95).1 We
conclude that the court properly denied Casillas’s motion
because, as the actual killer, he is ineligible for relief pursuant to
section 1172.6 as a matter of law. (People v. Lewis (2021) 11
Cal.5th 952, 959, 971; People v. Hurtado (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th
887, 893.) We affirm.

         1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
       This appeal concerns the 1997 murder of 16-year-old James
Bush, who was stabbed to death by a burglar hiding in Bush’s
bedroom. Technological advances in DNA testing permitted the
solution of this cold case in 2014. DNA analysis of human feces
and palm print identification methods revealed Casillas as the
burglar who stabbed Bush to death.
       In 2017, a jury convicted Casillas of first degree murder
and found that he committed the murder while engaged in a
residential burglary. (§§ 187, subd. (a), 189, 190.2, subd.
(a)(17)(G).) The trial court sentenced him to life without the
possibility of parole plus five years for the enhancement pursuant
to section 667, subdivision (a). We affirmed the conviction in
People v. Casillas (Oct. 28, 2019, B281363) [nonpub. opn.].
       Following Casillas’s conviction of first degree murder and
burglary special circumstance and later appeal, he brought a
motion for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6. The trial
court denied the motion at the prima facie stage, concluding that
Casillas, as the actual killer, is ineligible for resentencing as a
matter of law. In this appeal we reject Casillas’s arguments that
the court engaged in improper factfinding or that the jury may
have convicted him of murder without finding that he was the
actual killer.
            FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
       In 1997, Bush and his mother, Gail Shirley, lived in
Ventura. In June 1997, they left their home to visit the
Department of Motor Vehicles. When they returned home, they
did not notice anything amiss; their doors and windows remained
locked. They left the home again for errands.
       When they returned home shortly thereafter, Bush noticed
the screen on his bedroom window had been removed and the

                                 2
window lock opened. Shirley sought to call the police emergency
number but heard the front door slam and looked for Bush. She
found him lying on the floor with stab wounds to his neck and
stomach. Bush informed her that his assailant had left.
       Ventura Police Officers responded quickly to Shirley’s
emergency call. An officer and paramedics rendered first aid to
Bush but he died at the hospital.
       That morning, neighbors saw a young Hispanic man knock
on neighbors’ doors, ostensibly seeking someone. Two young girls
riding bicycles saw a young man run from an area near the Bush
home. The man held a long knife which he placed in his
waistband. The man wore a green-colored plaid shirt, similar to
the shirt Casillas wore in his driver’s license photograph. The
girls later assisted police officers in drafting a sketch of the man.
Another neighbor saw a young Hispanic man in the neighborhood
who appeared nervous and was looking around. The neighbor
informed police officers that the police sketch resembled the man
she saw.
       Police officers located a partial palm print from the
windowsill in Bush’s bedroom that was determined to be the
point of entry. Officers also found human feces in a laundry
basket in Shirley’s dressing room. A neighbor found a folding
knife in the neighborhood; it contained cotton fibers matching
Bush’s shirt.
       In 2002, due to advances in DNA technology, police officers
obtained a DNA profile from the feces left in the Bush home. In
2014, officers matched the palm print left on Bush’s windowsill
with Casillas’s palm print. A later search of Casillas’s computer
revealed that he had researched DNA testing of feces, unsolved

                                  3
murders in Ventura County, and elements of the crime of
murder.
       In our prior opinion, we rejected Casillas’s theory that an
unknown person entered Bush’s home and stabbed Bush as “pure
fantasy.” (People v. Casillas, supra, B281363.) We concluded
that sufficient evidence established that Casillas was “the direct
perpetrator of the murder” and that there was no evidence of an
accomplice. (Ibid.)
       On January 28, 2022, Casillas filed a petition for
resentencing asserting that he had been convicted pursuant to a
felony-murder theory and that the trial court had instructed the
jury regarding principles of aiding and abetting. Thus he
reasoned that the jury convicted him without finding that he was
the actual killer.
       Following appointment of and briefing by counsel and the
trial court’s judicial notice of the record of conviction, the court
held a contested hearing. During the hearing, the trial judge
remarked that he had a “complete memory [of the tragic facts] in
this case” and that the memory would “never fade.” The judge
then ruled that the only theory presented to the jury was that
Casillas was the burglar and the actual killer of Bush: “There
was never an argument presented to the jury it was anybody
else.” The court then denied the resentencing petition.
                             DISCUSSION
       Casillas argues that the trial court erred by denying the
resentencing petition at the prima facie stage because the court’s
special circumstance instruction incorporated the aiding and
abetting language included in the felony murder and burglary
escape instructions. He points out that there was no express
finding that he was the actual killer. Casillas adds that a

                                 4
personal weapon use allegation was not submitted to the jury.
He also contends that the court erred by relying upon its own
memory of the crime.
       A person is entitled to resentencing relief pursuant to
section 1172.6 if (1) “[a] complaint, information, or indictment
was filed against the petitioner that allowed the prosecution to
proceed under a theory of felony murder [or] murder under the
natural and probable consequences doctrine,” (2) the petitioner
“was convicted of murder,” and (3) the petitioner “could not
presently be convicted of murder . . . because of changes to
Section 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019.” (Id., subd.
(a)(1)-(3).) In January 2019, our Legislature amended section 188
to provide that “in order to be convicted of murder, a principal in
a crime shall act with malice aforethought” and that “[m]alice
shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his . . .
participation in a crime.” (Id., subd. (a)(3), amended by Stats.
2018, ch. 1015, § 2.) The amendment ensures that murder
liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer,
did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant
in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to
human life. (People v. Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th 952, 959.)
Section 1172.6 provides a procedure for convicted murderers who
could not be convicted under the amended law to retroactively
seek relief.
       The trial court may consider the petitioner’s record of
conviction, including the court’s own documents, in assessing
whether a petitioner has made a prima facie case for relief
pursuant to section 1172.6. (People v. Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th
952, 971-972 [record of conviction includes jury summations, jury
instructions, verdict forms, and prior appellate opinions].) If the

                                5
record contains facts refuting the allegations in the petition, the
court may make a credibility determination adverse to the
petitioner. (Id. at p. 971.) The court may not engage in
factfinding or weighing of evidence, however, at the prima facie
stage. (Id. at p. 972.) We independently review the summary
denial of a resentencing petition pursuant to section 1172.6.
(People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 52; People v. Coley
(2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 539, 545.)
       Here, as a matter of law, Casillas is ineligible for
resentencing because the record of conviction conclusively
establishes that he was “the actual killer” who personally stabbed
and killed Bush. (§ 189, subd. (e)(1); People v. Vang (2022) 82
Cal.App.5th 64, 88 [the actual killer is the person who personally
committed the homicide].)
       The trial court instructed with two theories of felony
murder: CALCRIM No. 540A (Felony Murder: First Degree –
Defendant Allegedly Committed Fatal Act) and CALCRIM No.
540B (Felony Murder: First Degree – Coparticipant Allegedly
Committed Fatal Act). The court also instructed regarding
principles of aiding and abetting to be applied only in connection
with the second theory of felony murder and not used for any
other purpose. (CALCRIM Nos. 400, 401.) No other instructions
used aider and abettor language regarding the death of the
victim.
       The trial court instructed regarding the special
circumstance of burglary: “To prove that this special
circumstance is true, the People must prove that: [¶] 1. The
defendant committed burglary; [¶] 2. The defendant intended to
commit burglary; [¶] and [¶] 3. The defendant did an act that
caused the death of another person.” (CALCRIM No. 730 [Special

                                6
Circumstances: Murder in Commission of Felony].) The jury was
not instructed that aiding and abetting principles applied to the
burglary special circumstance.
       Moreover, the prosecution’s theory of the crime was that
only Casillas was in the Bush home that morning and that there
was no evidence of an accomplice. The prosecutor described the
defense theory of an unknown person who entered the home later
and stabbed Bush as unreasonable and unsupported by any
evidence. Casillas was prosecuted as the sole defendant, the only
burglar, and the actual killer. (People v. Patton (2023) 89
Cal.App.5th 649, 657 [defendant who is sole participant and
actual killer denied resentencing as a matter of law].) Unlike
People v. Lopez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 1, there is no evidence that
Casillas had an accomplice or that another person was present
during the burglary and stabbing.
       We also reject Casillas’s assertion that by relying upon its
memory of the trial, the trial court engaged in improper
factfinding. The court acknowledged it would (and did) receive
the record of conviction including the jury instructions and the
reporter’s transcripts. Casillas also briefed the issue of
factfinding at the prima facie stage of resentencing and improper
reliance upon factual recitations in appellate opinions. We
presume the court follows the law in the performance of its
official duty absent evidence to the contrary. (Ross v. Superior
Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 899, 913; People v. Abdelsalam (2022) 73
Cal.App.5th 654, 663.)

                                7
                       DISPOSITION
     The judgment (order) is affirmed.
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                  GILBERT, P. J.
We concur:

             YEGAN, J.

             BALTODANO, J.

                              8
                  Matthew P. Guasco, Judge

               Superior Court County of Ventura

               ______________________________

      Claudia Y. Bautista, Public Defender, and Thomas
Hartnett, Deputy Public Defender, for Defendant and Appellant
      Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant
Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Yun K. Lee, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                              9