People v. Castillo CA5

California Court of Appeal Aug 25, 2016 No. F068969Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice from his trial counsel's failure to object to evidence of a prior act of violence, as the evidence of the defendant's guilt was overwhelming and the prior act was not reasonably likely to have influenced the jury's verdict.

Issues

Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to evidence of a prior act of violence under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (a).

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In the interest of judicial economy, we reject appellant’s claim based on the absence of prejudice without deciding the question of deficient performance or the issue of cognizability on direct appeal.”

“In light of the surrounding circumstances, it is not reasonably probable that Castillo would have obtained a more favorable result at trial but for his attorney’s failure to object to the testimony about a prior act of violence.”

Filed 8/25/16 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F068969 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F12902660) v.

FRANK RUBEN CASTILLO, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Wayne R. Ellison, Judge. Han N. Tran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen and Jesse Witt, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- Frank Castillo appeals from a judgment of conviction of second degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)). The victim, who was attacked while lying passed out

1 Except where otherwise specified, all statutory references are to the Penal Code.

drunk on a sleeping bag, sustained fatal injuries from being kicked in the head. Castillo admitted responsibility for the victim’s death, but argued for a verdict of manslaughter. A jury found that he acted with malice. The only claim on appeal is ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to object to evidence of a prior act of violence. As will be explained, the alleged error was harmless. We therefore affirm the judgment. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Castillo was charged with murder in the death of John Salvio, Jr. (Salvio). It was further alleged that Castillo had suffered a prior strike and serious felony conviction (§§ 667, subds. (a), (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), and had served three prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). The murder count was tried by jury. The enhancement allegations were bifurcated, but Castillo admitted the truth of those allegations at the conclusion of trial. The prosecution called 17 witnesses to establish a rather convoluted set of facts involving a group of homeless people in southeast Fresno. At the heart of the case was an alleged love triangle between Castillo, Salvio, and a woman named Vicky Guerrero. We provide an abbreviated summary of the trial evidence, focusing on the information essential to our analysis of the ineffective assistance claim. On April 7, 2012, police responded to a report of domestic violence near East Tulare Avenue and North 2nd Street, an area where homeless individuals frequently congregated and slept. Upon arrival, the investigating officer made contact with Salvio and Vicky Guerrero. Both of them were visibly drunk. Salvio complained that his girlfriend, Ms. Guerrero, had punched him in the mouth and taken his cell phone. Ms. Guerrero was arrested for public intoxication and disturbing the peace. Castillo allegedly learned of Ms. Guerrero’s arrest the following evening while drinking beer with James Paxton, another homeless person who was mutually acquainted with Castillo and Salvio. Although Mr. Paxton denied informing Castillo of

People v. Castillo CA5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief