People v. Castrillo CA5

Filed 4/26/22 P. v. Castrillo 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F083077 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Merced Super. Ct. v. No. 15CR-00224A)

JOSEPH ELIAS CASTRILLO, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Ronald W. Hansen, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Merced Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Sylvia W. Beckham, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P. J., Smith, J. and Snauffer, J.

INTRODUCTION Appellant and defendant Joseph Elias Castrillo (appellant) was convicted of first degree murder with a firearm enhancement and sentenced to an aggregate term of 50 years to life. On appeal, this court affirmed his conviction and the enhancement, but remanded the matter for the court to consider whether to strike the Penal Code1 section 12022.53, subdivision (d) firearm enhancement, based on statutory amendments that occurred after his sentencing hearing. On remand, the court declined to dismiss the firearm enhancement. In this appeal, appellant argues the matter must again be remanded because the court did not realize the full extent of its discretion as to the section 12022.53, subdivision (d) firearm enhancement. We agree and will again remand. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On the night of January 4 through 5, 2015, appellant and Dante Woods called a taxi company to request a ride. Dean Barker, a taxi driver for the company, responded to the call. Woods and appellant did not have enough money to cover the fare. Upon reaching the destination, appellant killed Barker by firing three shots into the back of his head. Charges, Conviction, and Sentence Appellant was charged and tried for murder, with the special allegation that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm which proximately caused death (§ 12022.53, subds. (d), (e)(1)). On August 31, 2017, a jury found appellant guilty of first degree murder (§ 187) and the section 12022.53, subdivision (d) firearm enhancement true.