People v. Superior Court (Castellanos) CA4/3

California Court of Appeal Jul 2, 2024 No. G063460Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court erred in ordering a retrial on count 3 because the prior appellate reversal of the judgment in its entirety was intended to vacate the sentence, not the underlying conviction, which remained valid.

Issues

Whether the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering a retrial on a count that was not affected by the appellate court's prior reversal of the judgment.
Whether the appellate court's prior reversal of the judgment 'in its entirety' vacated the underlying conviction for count 3.

Disposition. granted

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court erred by construing our reversal of the judgment as vacating the verdict and finding as to count 3.”

“We order that Castellanos is not to be retried on count 3.”

“Castellanos stands convicted of count 3 for the benefit of a criminal street gang.”

Filed 7/2/24 P. v. Superior Court (Castellanos) 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Petitioner, G063460

v. (Super. Ct. No. 11WF1945)

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION ORANGE COUNTY,

Respondent;

IVAN CASTELLANOS,

Real Party in Interest.

Original proceedings; petition for a writ of prohibition/mandate to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Patrick H. Donahue, Judge. Petition granted. Todd Spitzer, District Attorney, and Matthew O. Plunkett, Deputy District Attorney, for Petitioner. Early M. Hawkins for Real Party in Interest.

The Orange County District Attorney (OCDA) filed a petition for writ of prohibition/mandate challenging the trial court’s order authorizing Ivan Castellanos to seek retrial on one count of assault with a deadly weapon. The OCDA argues the court erred because its ruling was in excess of its jurisdiction. We agree and grant the petition. FACTS This case concerns crimes committed on two different days about one week apart. The prosecution charged Castellanos with committing a 1 crime on August 7, 2011—aggravated assault (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) (count 3) for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). The prosecution also charged Castellanos with committing the following crimes on August 13, 2011: special circumstance gang murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 190, subd. (a)(22)) (count 1) and attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder (§§ 664, subd. (a), 187, subd. (a)) (count 2). It alleged he personally discharged a firearm during the commission of counts 1 and 2 (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)) and benefitted a criminal street gang during the commission of count 2.2 At the first trial, the jury convicted Castellanos of count 3 and found true the gang enhancement. It was unable to reach a verdict on counts 1 and 2, and the trial court declared a mistrial. The prosecution retried Castellanos on counts 1 and 2. At the second trial, the jury convicted Castellanos of counts 1 and 2 and found true

People v. Superior Court (Castellanos) CA4/3

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION ORANGE COUNTY,

IVAN CASTELLANOS,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

O’LEARY, P. J.

SANCHEZ, J.

DELANEY, J.

AI Brief