Opinion
B296531
03-19-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RENE ROLANDO AILON CASTRO, Defendant and Appellant.
Edward H. Schulman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Acting Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Heidi T. Salerno, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA464487) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Curtis B. Rappe, Judge. Affirmed. Edward H. Schulman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Acting Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Heidi T. Salerno, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
INTRODUCTION
This appeal arises from appellant's conviction of special circumstance murder and rape. Rene Rolando Ailon Castro was charged in a true bill of indictment filed May 16, 2018 with the special circumstance murder and rape of Maylin Fuentes on or about May 13, 2017. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 190,2, subd. (a)(17) and 261, subd. (a)(2).)
On February 6, 2019, a jury returned general verdicts of guilty as to both charges and rendered a true finding on the felony-murder based special circumstance.
On March 7, 2019, the court imposed life without the possibility of parole on the murder and imposed but stayed an eight-year upper term sentence on the rape pursuant to section 654.
FACTS
Outcall prostitute Maylin Fuentes arranged to service appellant at his apartment the night of May 12-13, 2017. She and her driver Jose Carranza arrived at that location shortly before 3:00 a.m. Appellant met her at the car and the two walked upstairs to unit 12, a unit he shared with Cirila Mateo, her husband and her son. Fuentes texted her driver around 3:20 a.m. advising that she would be staying longer than originally planned. Her last text communication to Carranza was at 3:34 a.m. At 5:00 a.m Carranza called his brother for assistance. Sometime between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m., the brothers knocked on the door to unit 12 and inquired about her. A man of short stature appeared and said he knew nothing about her.
Fuentes's body was found the night of May 13 in a shopping cart a few blocks from appellant's apartment. After his arrest on May 24, 2017, appellant admitted he hired Fuentes and unintentionally killed her by strangulation during acts of rough sex.
At trial appellant acknowledged responsibility for Fuentes's death. He said he never intended to injure, let alone kill, her.
DISCUSSION
Appellant raises one issue on appeal. He contends California's felony-murder based special circumstance (here, rape) is unconstitutionally applied when, as here, the state's theory for the predicate offense of first degree murder requires proof of elements identical to those necessary to establish the charged special circumstance. Such a statutory scheme provides no meaningful basis for a jury to distinguish between the factual findings necessary for a guilty verdict of first degree murder, punishable by 25 years to life in prison, from those necessary to establish the special circumstance punishable by death or life without parole. It therefore violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
Appellant acknowledges California Supreme Court precedent rejects this argument: People v. Marshall (1990) 50 Cal.3d 907, 945-946; People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th 81, 158; People v. Millwee (1998) 18 Cal.4th 96, 164; People v. Abilez (2007) 41 Cal.4th 472, 528.
Appellant also acknowledges our obligation to follow California Supreme Court precedent. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.)
DISPOSITION
We adhere to such precedent and affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
STRATTON, J. We concur:
GRIMES, Acting P. J.
WILEY, J.