People v. Castano CA4/1 ( 2015 )

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
5