People v. Castillo CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. CR134015
- Trial judge
- Frederic L. Link
- Outcome
- reversed — Reversed and remanded with directions.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith L. Haller, Truc T. Do
Analysis
The trial court denied Castillo's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 at the prima facie stage, concluding based on its own evaluation of trial testimony that he was a direct aider and abettor who acted with reckless disregard for human life. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded with directions to issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing, accepting the Attorney General's concession that the trial court improperly engaged in factfinding and weighing evidence at the prima facie stage.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 at the prima facie stage“Such evidentiary analysis and weighing was not appropriate at the prima facie stage of review. The court should not have denied the petition at that point; thus, we will accept the parties’ agreement including the Attorney General’s concession and reverse and remand the case with directions.” | de novo | error | agree with court The trial court erred by engaging in factfinding, making credibility determinations, and weighing evidence to independently conclude the defendant was a direct aider and abettor acting with reckless disregard for human life. Under People v. Lewis, the trial court may only determine if the petitioner has made a prima facie showing based on the petition and the record of conviction, without resolving factual disputes or weighing evidence, which requires an order to show cause and an evidentiary hearing. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — Clarifies that at the prima facie stage of a section 1170.95 petition, the trial court may not engage in factfinding, making credibility determinations, or weighing evidence, but must issue an order to show cause if a prima facie showing is made.
- relied: People v. Drayton (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 965 — Supports the proposition that trial courts may not engage in factfinding, making credibility determinations, or weighing evidence at the prima facie review stage of a section 1170.95 petition.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the standard established in People v. Lewis, which prohibits trial courts from weighing evidence or making credibility determinations at the prima facie stage of a section 1170.95 petition. The court accurately identifies that the trial court's independent evaluation of trial testimony to determine the defendant's mental state and role constituted impermissible factfinding, thereby justifying the reversal and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
The trial court denied Rudolpho Castillo's Penal Code section 1170.95 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage, after reviewing the trial record and independently finding he was a direct aider and abettor who acted with reckless disregard for life, without issuing an order to show cause. The Court of Appeal accepted the Attorney General's concession, held that such evidentiary weighing is impermissible at the prima facie stage under People v. Lewis, and reversed and remanded with directions to issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of section 1170.95 petition at the prima facie stage, without issuing an order to show cause, based on the trial court's own evaluation of the trial testimony and finding that Castillo was a direct aider and abettor acting with reckless disregard for human life“Such evidentiary analysis and weighing was not appropriate at the prima facie stage of review. The court should not have denied the petition at that point” | unclear | error (procedure) | agree with court Under Lewis, at the prima facie stage the court may consult the record of conviction only to determine whether the petitioner's allegations are refuted as a matter of law; it may not engage in factfinding, credibility determinations, or weighing of evidence. Here the jury was instructed mid-deliberation on natural and probable consequences liability, so the record did not conclusively establish that Castillo was convicted on a still-valid theory, and the trial court resolved that ambiguity by weighing testimony and making its own findings (even mixing felony-murder 'major participant/reckless disregard' language with implied malice). That is exactly the error Lewis prohibits, and the Attorney General conceded it. The opinion does not state a standard of review, though the question is effectively one of law reviewed de novo. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — At the prima facie stage of a section 1170.95 petition the court may consider the record of conviction to determine whether the petitioner's allegations are rebutted as a matter of law, but may not engage in factfinding, credibility determinations, or weighing of evidence; if a prima facie showing is made, the court must issue an order to show cause.
- relied: People v. Drayton (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 965 — A trial court reviewing a section 1170.95 petition at the prima facie stage must accept the petitioner's factual allegations as true unless refuted by the record as a matter of law, and may not weigh evidence or resolve factual disputes before issuing an order to show cause.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies Lewis and Drayton to a trial court that plainly weighed trial testimony and made factual findings at the prima facie stage, and it properly identifies the natural and probable consequences instruction given during deliberations as creating an ambiguity that could not be resolved as a matter of law. The analysis is brief and rests on a concession, but the result and reasoning are squarely supported by binding authority.
Opinion
Filed 2/2/22 P. v. Castillo 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, D078680
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. CR134015)
RUDOLPHO CASTILLO,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Frederic L. Link, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Appellant’s request for judicial notice is denied. Steven S. Lubliner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Melissa Mandel, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal and Andrew Mestman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 1993, a jury convicted Rudolpho Castillo of first degree murder (Pen.
Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) with the use of a firearm (§ 12022, subd. (a)) and assault with a firearm with the personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). Castillo admitted a serious felony prior conviction. Castillo was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 31 years to life in prison. Castillo appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion, People v. Castillo, D018563 (Feb. 9, 1994). In 2019, Castillo filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. The court appointed counsel, received briefing, and ultimately held a hearing. After reviewing the record and the evidence from the original trial, the court determined Castillo was convicted as a direct aider and abettor who acted with reckless disregard for human life. The court said: “In looking at the evidence here, it is clear to this Court that this defendant was a major participant in the underlying felony, and he acted with reckless disregard, in going over the evidence of the case and from the facts from the Court of Appeal[ ].
“I find that in this case, it is very clear that he, with—even with intent to kill, he assisted the actual[ ] killer. He technically was a killer. He and his buddy went after him. One has got a butcher knife. He has the gun. He is shooting and misses. The other guy goes over and stabs him with the butcher knife. Your guy goes around and gets the car, and they all jump in and leave.
“I mean, if that is not a conspiracy to commit a felony, then I don't know what it is. That definitely is implied malice.”
Castillo filed a timely notice of appeal. Castillo contends the trial court erred in denying his petition at the prima facie stage of review without issuing an order to show cause and 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2 holding an evidentiary hearing. The Attorney General agrees with Castillo and concedes we must reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing. After review of the record, we will accept the Attorney General’s concession.2 DISCUSSION3 In People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 (Lewis), the court clarified the role of trial judges when conducting a prima facie review of a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. The court quoted from section 1170.95, former subdivision (c), explaining: “The court shall review the petition and determine if the petitioner has made a prima facie showing that the petitioner falls within the provisions of this section. If the petitioner has requested counsel, the court shall appoint counsel to represent the petitioner. The prosecutor shall file and serve a response within 60 days of service of the petition and the petitioner may file and serve a reply within 30 days after the prosecutor’s response is served. These deadlines shall be extended for good cause. If the petitioner makes a prima facie showing that he or she is entitled to relief, the court shall issue an order to show cause.”
(Lewis, at p. 961.)
The trial court may consider the record of conviction in determining whether the petitioner’s representations have been rebutted as a matter of law. The court may not, however, engage in factfinding, making credibility determinations, or weighing evidence at the prima facie review stage. (Lewis, 2 Given the Attorney General’s concession, we will deny Castillo’s request for judicial notice of certain records from the jury trial. Such additional records are not necessary for the proper resolution of this appeal.
3 The facts of the offense are fully set forth in our prior opinion. We will not repeat them here. 3 supra, 11 Cal 5th at pp. 971-972; People v. Drayton (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 965, 980-981.) In this case, the jury was instructed originally on direct aiding and abetting. However, during jury deliberations the jury was instructed on liability based on natural and probable consequences arising from aiding a “criminal act.” The prosecutor and the trial judge ignored the ambiguity created by the new instruction. The court focused on the testimony from the original trial. Based upon the court’s evaluation of the testimony from the trial, the court independently concluded Castillo was convicted as a direct aider and abettor who acted with reckless disregard for human life. Such evidentiary analysis and weighing was not appropriate at the prima facie stage of review. The court should not have denied the petition at that point; thus, we will accept the parties’ agreement including the Attorney General’s concession and reverse and remand the case with directions.
4 DISPOSITION The order denying Castillo’s petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 is reversed. The case is remanded to the superior court with directions to issue an order to show cause and to conduct an evidentiary hearing as required by statute.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, J.
DO, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Lewis S260598 · 2021-07-26