People v. Castillo CA5

Filed 6/20/23 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F085447 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 17CR-00540B) v.

RICHARD YANEZ CASTILLO, JR., OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Mark V. Bacciarini, Judge. Robert Navarro, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

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

INTRODUCTION A jury convicted defendant Richard Yanez Castillo, Jr., of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1); count 1) with a gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) and active participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a); count 2) after multiple inmates attacked a fellow inmate in their prison unit. (Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) Defendant admitted he had two prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a)(1) that also qualified as strike offenses. The court denied defendant’s motion to strike his prior strikes and sentenced defendant to 25 years to life in prison for the assault conviction. This is the third appeal in this matter. Most recently, we remanded for the trial court to recalculate defendant’s custody credits at the time of resentencing and to prepare an amended abstract of judgment reflecting that the court struck the section 667, subdivision (a)(1) prior serious felony enhancements. On remand, the court updated the abstract of judgment to reflect the stricken section 667, subdivision (a)(1) enhancements. The custody credits were initially not updated correctly, but the abstract of judgment was subsequently amended to reflect the appropriate custody credits after defense counsel wrote the court a letter pursuant to People v. Fares (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 954. Appointed counsel for defendant now asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed and we have received no communication from defendant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL A jury convicted defendant of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 1) with a gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)), and active participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a); count 2) based on his involvement in a group