People v. Castaneda CA5

California Court of Appeal Oct 3, 2023 No. F085424Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant was ineligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 as a matter of law because the jury was not instructed on any theory of imputed malice, such as the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 without an evidentiary hearing.
Whether the defendant's claims of trial error and actual innocence are cognizable in a section 1172.6 proceeding.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court held appellant was ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law: “A review of the jury instruction[s] shows that the jury was not instructed by the trial judge on either the felony murder or the natural and probable consequences doctrines.”

“The trial court correctly found appellant was ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law.”

Filed 10/3/23 P. v. Castaneda 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F085424 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 12-CM-1522HTA) v.

ISAAC SCOTT CASTANEDA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kings County. Randy L. Edwards, Judge. Victoria H. Stafford, 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 Levy, Acting P. J., Franson, J. and Snauffer, J.

INTRODUCTION Appellant and defendant Isaac Scott Castaneda (appellant) was convicted after a jury trial of premeditated attempted murder with firearm and gang enhancements, and sentenced to 25 years plus 45 years to life. In 2023, the trial court denied appellant’s Penal Code1 section 1172.6 petition for resentencing. On appeal, appellate counsel filed a brief which summarized the facts and procedural history with citations to the record, raised no issues, and asked this court to independently review the record pursuant to both People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Appellant submitted a supplemental brief raising several issues. We will address his contentions and affirm the trial court’s denial of his petition. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On August 6, 2013, a second amended information was filed in the Superior Court of Kings County charging appellant with count 1, premeditated attempted murder (§§ 664/187, subd. (a)), with personal use and discharge allegations (§12022.53, subds. (b), (c)); and count 2, possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)); with gang enhancements as to both counts (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) and prior conviction allegations. On the same day, appellant’s jury trial began. The Jury Instructions The court instructed the jury on the elements of count 1, attempted murder: “To prove that the defendant is guilty of attempted murder, the People must prove that, one, the defendant took at least one direct but ineffective step toward killing another person; and, two, the defendant intended to kill that person…. A direct step indicates a definite and unambiguous intent to kill.”

People v. Castaneda CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief