People v. Castle CA2/5

Filed 12/16/25 P. v. Castle CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B339715

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA130751) v.

NAEEM EL CASTLE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Hector E. Gutierrez, Judge. Dismissed. Patrick J. Hoynoski, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________

Naeem El Castle appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition for dismissal pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1203.4. In 2013, Castle pled no contest to inflicting corporal injury to a spouse or cohabitant. (§ 273.5, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced Castle to three years in state prison. In 2024, Castle filed a petition for dismissal pursuant to section 1203.4, in which he claimed that he was not serving a sentence for any offense or under charge of commission of any crime and had fulfilled the conditions of probation. The trial court denied the petition on the basis that Castle had been sentenced to prison, and was thus not entitled to relief under section 1203.4. Castle appealed, and this court appointed counsel to represent him. After examining the record, Castle’s attorney filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking that we follow the procedures set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), including full independent review of the record. We invited Castle to file a supplemental brief pursuant to Wende. When appealing from a postconviction order a defendant does not have a constitutional right to independent review under Anders2/Wende if appellate counsel cannot identify any arguable issues. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 227, 231.) However, “[i]f the defendant subsequently files a supplemental brief or letter, the Court of Appeal is required to evaluate the specific arguments presented in that brief and to issue a written opinion.” (Id. at p. 232.) “If the defendant does not file a supplemental