People v. Castelan CA4/3

Filed 8/29/23 P. v. Castelan CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G061901

v. (Super. Ct. No. 98CF3308)

LEONARDO CASTELAN, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan S. Fish, Judge. Affirmed. Reed Webb, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

In 2000, a jury convicted Leonardo Castelan of attempted murder (Pen. 1 Code, §§, 664, 187, subd. (a)) as well as several gang related charges; the jury also found true firearm and gang related enhancements. The trial court sentenced Castelan to 34 years to life in prison. We affirmed his conviction. (People v. Castelan (Nov. 26, 2002, G028337) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2022, without the assistance of counsel, Castelan filed a petition in which he requested resentencing pursuant to section 1170.95 (later renumbered 1172.6). The trial court appointed counsel to represent him. The People filed a written response. The court conducted a hearing on September 16, 2022. At the conclusion of that hearing, the court concluded Castelan had failed to make a prima facie showing he was entitled to relief; it therefore denied his petition. Castelan filed a timely notice of appeal from that ruling. We appointed counsel to represent Castelan on appeal. After conducting his analysis of potential appellate issues, counsel informed us in his brief he could find “no arguable issue for review.” In an attached declaration, counsel further advised us “[a] staff attorney at Appellate Defenders, Inc. has also reviewed the record and has come to the same conclusion.” Counsel then filed a brief pursuant to the procedures set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. While not arguing against his client, counsel set forth the facts of the case and asked this court to conduct its own independent review of the appellate record, which we have 2 done. Like counsel, we have been unable to find any arguable appellate issue. We therefore affirm.