People v. Castano CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD253596
- Trial judge
- Charles R. Gill
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Cynthia Aaron (author), Judith D. McConnell, Joan K. Irion
Analysis
The trial court sentenced the defendant to 14 years in prison following a guilty plea to robbery with a gang enhancement and a prior strike admission, after denying a motion to strike the prior strike. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no reasonably arguable issues of error.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of motion to strike prior strike conviction“Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion in denying appellant's motion to strike his strike prior?” | abuse of discretion | not reached | unsure The court identified the issue as 'possible, but not arguable' and concluded that its independent review of the record disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue, thereby affirming the judgment without detailed analysis of the specific ruling. |
Voluntariness of guilty plea“Was appellant's plea knowing, intelligent and voluntary?” | unclear | not reached | unsure The court listed this as a potential issue raised by counsel but determined through independent review that no reasonably arguable appellate issue existed, resulting in an affirmance. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to file a brief and the court to independently review the record for error when counsel finds no arguable issues.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw from representation in an appeal by filing a brief identifying arguable issues and inviting the court to review the record.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing an appeal where counsel presents no argument. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis for the specific issues identified by counsel, relying solely on the conclusion that no reasonably arguable issues exist.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionCastano pled guilty to robbery with a gang enhancement and admitted a prior strike; the trial court denied his motion to strike the prior and sentenced him to 14 years (low term of two years doubled, plus 10 years for the gang enhancement). On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Acceptance of Castano's guilty plea and admissions as knowing, intelligent, and voluntary“"Was appellant's plea knowing, intelligent and voluntary?"” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion recites that counsel flagged plea validity as a possible issue and that independent Wende/Anders review disclosed no arguable error; the opinion gives no detail of the plea colloquy, so the result can only be accepted on the court's representation that it reviewed the record. Nothing in the opinion suggests any defect, and the negotiated disposition (dismissal of the second count, court retaining sentencing discretion) is internally consistent with the sentence imposed. |
Denial of Castano's motion to strike his prior strike conviction and imposition of a 14-year sentence“"Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion in denying appellant's motion to strike his strike prior?"” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court The opinion shows the trial court considered the mitigating factors offered (youth at time of prior, homelessness), weighed the recency of the prior violent robbery, the gang context, and that the new offense occurred immediately after a counseling session, and then imposed the low term rather than the 16 years requested by the People. On those facts, refusing to strike the prior falls well within the court's discretion, and the sentence components (2 years doubled to 4, plus 10 under section 186.22(b)(1)(C) for a violent felony) are lawful. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for error before affirming.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous may so advise the court and identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, after which the court conducts its own review.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the required Wende/Anders procedure, identifies the issues counsel flagged, and states that independent review disclosed no arguable issue; the sentencing facts recited support the denial of the motion to strike and the lawfulness of the 14-year term. Because it is a Wende opinion, it does not discuss the governing Romero standard or the plea colloquy, which leaves gaps a reader cannot fill from the opinion alone.
Opinion
Filed 1/28/15 P. v. Castano CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN 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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D066248
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD253596)
EUTIQUIO CASTANO,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Charles R.
Gill, Judge. Affirmed.
Stephen M. Hinkle, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. I.
INTRODUCTION
Eutiquio Castano pled guilty to one count of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211)1 and admitted a gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). Castano also admitted having suffered a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 668, 1170.12). The trial court sentenced Castano to an aggregate sentence of 14 years in prison, consisting of the low term of two years for the robbery, doubled to four years due to the strike prior, and a consecutive term of 10 years for the gang enhancement.
Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal, but inviting this court to review the record for error in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). After having independently reviewed the entire record for error, as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and Wende, we affirm.
1 Unless otherwise specified, all subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2 II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Factual background2 Castano unlawfully, by means of force and fear, took personal property from the victim, Quincy P. In engaging in such conduct, Castano acted in association with a criminal street gang.
B. Procedural background In January 2014, the People charged Castano with two counts of robbery (§ 211).
With respect to both counts, the People alleged that Castano committed the crimes in association with a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). The People also alleged that Castano has suffered a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 668, 1170.12).
In February 2014, Castano pled guilty to one count of robbery (§ 211)3 and admitted a gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). Castano also admitted having suffered a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 668, 1170.12). In exchange, the People agreed to dismiss the balance of the charges and allegations. The parties agreed that the court would retain discretion in sentencing Castano.
2 Our factual background is taken from the change of plea hearing.
3 Unless otherwise specified, all subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code. 3 The People filed a sentencing memorandum in which they requested that the court impose a sentence of 16 years in prison. In their brief, the People noted that Castano had suffered a strike prior for a violent robbery less than two years before the charged incident and that the current crime was gang related.
Castano filed a combined statement in mitigation and a motion to strike his prior strike. Castano requested that the court strike the prior strike in light of various factors, including that he was only 17 years old at the time of the prior strike and that he was homeless and without money for food.
At sentencing, the court heard argument from the People and from defense counsel. The court stated that it was concerned that the current robbery took place "just as Mr. Castano walked out of a counseling session that was an attempt to get Mr. Castano to understand the difficulties that he will be involved in by continuing his behavior." The court also noted that in determining the proper sentence, he had considered Castano's prior strike and his gang affiliation. The court ultimately imposed an aggregate sentence of 14 years in prison, as described in part I, ante.
III.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings in the trial court. Counsel has presented no argument for reversal, and invited this court to review the record for error in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 4 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, counsel identified the following as possible, but not arguable, issues:
"Was appellant's plea knowing, intelligent and voluntary?"
"Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion in denying appellant's motion to strike his strike prior?"
A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the issues suggested by counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Castano has been adequately represented by counsel on this appeal.
IV.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
AARON, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
IRION, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12
- People v. Coleman Crim. 14283 · 1971-03-24