People v. Castleman CA1/1

Filed 10/19/15 P. v. Castleman CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A141860 v. RICHARD D. CASTLEMAN, (Humboldt County Super. Ct. No. CR1003911) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Richard D. Castleman was sentenced under the “Three Strikes” law to an indeterminate life term for a nonviolent felony. Following the passage of the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Proposition 36), defendant successfully petitioned for a recall of his sentence, which was reduced to a determinate term of 10 years. Defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to reduce his sentence still further by striking his prior felony convictions under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero). Concluding the trial court had no authority to strike a prior conviction in the context of a petition to recall sentence under Proposition 36, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND This is defendant’s second appeal in this matter. In an earlier decision, we affirmed his convictions for drug-related offenses and an associated indeterminate life sentence imposed under the Three Strikes law. (People v. Castleman (A131730, Mar. 14, 2013) [nonpub. opn.] (Castleman I).) In doing so, we upheld the trial court’s decision under Romero not to strike one or more of defendant’s prior strike convictions, explaining:

“This is not an extraordinary case. The trial court was clearly aware of the scope of its discretion and the factors guiding that discretion. The court found, in essence, that defendant’s prior serious felony convictions, his other convictions, and ‘the particulars of his background, character, and prospects’ ([People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161]), suggest he is the type of repeat offender intended to be covered by the Three Strikes law. . . . As the trial court noted, defendant not only suffered the strike convictions but has spent substantial time in prison in the interim years as a result of other offenses, consistently failing to succeed on parole. There is no basis for reversing the court’s decision not to strike the prior serious felony convictions.” (Castleman I, supra, A131730.) In 2012, the electorate passed Proposition 36, which eliminated indeterminate life terms under the Three Strikes law for the commission of certain nonviolent felonies and permitted qualifying inmates to petition the court for a reduction in sentence. In late 2013, defendant filed a petition for recall of his sentence under Proposition 36. Although the prosecution initially indicated it would oppose the recall, it ultimately stipulated to defendant’s resentencing. Prior to the resentencing hearing, defendant provided the court with documents attesting to his good character and good conduct in prison. In a separate memorandum, defendant urged the court to impose a sentence of 10 years, twice the term for his felony convictions, as dictated by Proposition 36. At the hearing, however, defendant renewed his motion under Romero, asking the court to strike all of his prior convictions. The court denied the motion, citing the reasons stated in connection with its original ruling, and imposed the sentence of 10 years sought by defendant in the memorandum submitted to the court. II. DISCUSSION On appeal, defendant does not dispute the propriety of the court’s resentencing under the provisions of Proposition 36. Rather, he contends the trial court erred in not considering the additional evidence of his character and prison conduct when denying his renewed Romero motion.