People v. Castillo CA5

California Court of Appeal May 16, 2014 No. F066942Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court dismissed the appeal because the notice of appeal was untimely and the defendant failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause to challenge the validity of his plea agreement.

Issues

Whether the defendant's notice of appeal was filed within the jurisdictional 60-day time limit.
Whether the issues raised by the defendant are cognizable on appeal without a certificate of probable cause.
Whether the trial court's sentence was unauthorized under People v. Howard.

Disposition. dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Under Penal Code section 1237.5 and California Rules of Court, rule 8.308, the failure to comply with the time limit requirements is jurisdictional and the appeal must be dismissed.”

“In order to appeal issues related to the validity of a plea agreement, a defendant must obtain a certificate of probable cause pursuant to section 1237.5.”

“In sum, we reject respondent’s argument that the trial court’s sentence in the instant matter was unauthorized.”

Filed 5/16/14 P. v. Castillo CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F066942

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. CRM016735 & CRM023097) v. OPINION JULIO CASTILLO, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Marc A. Garcia, Judge. Engel Law Group and Julius M. Engel, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. McKenna and Charity S. Whitney, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

* Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Franson, J., and Peña, J.

PROCEEDINGS

On June 20, 2011, appellant, Julio Castillo, Jr., waived his constitutional rights pursuant to Boykin/Tahl,1 pled no contest to one count of battery of a cohabitant in violation of Penal Code section 273.5, subd. (a)(1),2 and admitted two prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Under the terms of the plea agreement, appellant would be placed on probation and face a suspended sentence of six years, based on the upper term of four years for the charged offense and consecutive sentences of one year for each enhancement. On September 7, 2011, the trial court sentenced appellant to a term of six years, suspended execution of its sentence, and placed appellant on felony probation.

On May 30, 2012, an affidavit of probation violation was filed alleging that appellant was arrested for felony drunk driving. On June 14, 2012, a first amended criminal complaint was filed charging appellant with driving under the influence and causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a), count 1), driving with a measurable blood alcohol content and causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b), count 2), and felony drunk driving with a qualifying prior conviction in the previous 10 years (Veh. Code, §§ 23550.5, subd. (a) & 23153, subd. (a), count 3). The complaint alleged two prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of the three strikes law and two prior prison term enhancements. On August 23, 2012, appellant entered into a new plea agreement and executed and initialed an advisement of rights, waiver, and plea form for felonies. The plea bargain included a resolution of both the new allegations, as well as appellant’s 2011

People v. Castillo CA5

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, F066942

PROCEEDINGS

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief