People v. Castellanos CA3

Filed 3/15/24 P. v. Castellanos CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C098489

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 21CF06109)

v.

RUDY CASTELLANOS, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

After defendant Rudy Castellanos, Jr., pled guilty to transporting controlled substances for sale, the trial court sentenced him to the middle term and imposed a fine and two fees. Defendant contends the court (1) abused its discretion by not imposing the lower term and (2) erred in imposing the fine and fees for various reasons. We find no merit in defendant’s first contention but agree with his second under People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas). We order a limited remand for the trial court to ascertain defendant’s ability to pay the fine and fees. Statutory citations are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND During a traffic stop, an officer found two small plastic bags of methamphetamine in defendant’s possession. The officer later recovered a separate plastic bag of methamphetamine that defendant had earlier thrown out of his car window. Defendant pled guilty to transporting methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subds. (a) & (c)) in exchange for a four-year maximum sentence and dismissal of other charges and allegations. He stipulated that the court could find aggravating factors based on the probation report, that the court could sentence him to the lower, middle or upper term, and that he could submit evidence of mitigating factors. According to the probation report filed in April 2023, defendant is 45 years old, participated in trauma counseling from ages 5 to 11 due to witnessing domestic abuse in his home, has used methamphetamine every day since age 12, considers himself addicted to methamphetamine, was willing to seek addiction treatment if granted probation, and is remorseful for his actions. He also has no income, is in poor health, and has been unemployed for the last five years due to body aches. The report cited one factor in mitigation (defendant voluntarily acknowledged wrongdoing before arrest or at an early stage in the criminal process; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.423(b)(8)) and three factors in aggravation (defendant has six prior felony convictions, defendant has served a prior prison term, and defendant’s prior performance on probation was unsatisfactory; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(2), (3), (5)). The probation officer recommended the middle term. At the sentencing hearing, the court expressed its intent to impose the “middle term with county prison with [731 days on] mandatory supervision.” Defense counsel then argued that the probation report supported an additional mitigating factor, namely, that defendant was suffering from a mental or physical condition that significantly reduced culpability for the crime (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.423(b)(2)) based on the trauma defendant experienced from ages 5 to 11. Defense counsel then referred to