People v. Castillo CA2/5

California Court of Appeal Mar 23, 2021 No. B306026Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the defendant's prior appeal raised issues unrelated to fines and fees, rendering the trial court without jurisdiction to rule on the motion under Penal Code section 1237.2.

Issues

Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to rule on a motion to vacate fines and fees under Penal Code section 1237.2 while other issues were pending on appeal.
Whether an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate fines and fees must be dismissed when the 'sole issue' requirement of section 1237.2 is not met.

Disposition. Dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“If the trial court does not have jurisdiction to rule on a motion to vacate or modify a sentence, an order denying such a motion is nonappealable, and any appeal from such an order must be dismissed”

“Section 1237.2’s purpose of promoting judicial economy is not served by permitting the trial court to consider a challenge to fines and fees while other issues are simultaneously pending before the Court of Appeal.”

Filed 3/23/21 P. v. Castillo CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B306026

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA145805) v.

RAFAEL AYALA CASTILLO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Raul A. Sahagun, Judge. Dismissed. Jonathan Bremen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Michael R. Johnsen, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Charles S. Lee, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

After a jury convicted defendant Rafael Ayala Castillo (defendant) of first degree murder, the trial court sentenced him to 50 years to life in prison and imposed various fines and fees. On direct appeal, defendant’s attorney filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) raising no issues, but defendant then filed a supplemental brief raising issues unrelated to the fines and fees imposed as part of his sentence. (People v. Castillo (Apr. 9, 2020, B295209 [nonpub. opn.]) While defendant’s direct appeal was pending, his attorney also filed a motion in the trial court seeking to vacate his fines and fees pursuant to People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, which the trial court denied. We consider whether we have jurisdiction to decide defendant’s appeal from that denial.

I. BACKGROUND A jury convicted defendant of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and found true several firearm 1

People v. Castillo CA2/5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B306026

RAFAEL AYALA CASTILLO,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

MOOR, J.

KIM, J.

AI Brief