Opinion
B295209
04-09-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAFAEL AYALA CASTILLO, Defendant and Appellant.
Janyce Keiko Imata Blair, 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, Noah P. Hill, Acting Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Charles S. Lee, Deputy Attorney 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. VA145805) APPEAL from a judgement of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Raul Sahagan, Judge. Affirmed. Janyce Keiko Imata Blair, 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, Noah P. Hill, Acting Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Charles S. Lee, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted defendant Rafael Ayala Castillo (defendant) of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187(a)) and found true several firearm enhancements alleged under Penal Code section 12022.53. The trial court imposed a sentence of 50 years to life plus various fines and fees. Defendant appealed the judgment, and this court appointed counsel to represent him. After examining the record, defendant's attorney on appeal filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) that raised no issues and asked us to independently review the record. We invited defendant to personally submit a supplemental brief, and defendant has done so in the form of a two-page letter. In the paragraphs that follow, we summarize the facts and explain why defendant's contentions lack merit.
Defendant's attorney on appeal previously filed an opening brief challenging the trial court's imposition of fines and fees without first determining that he was able to pay them, but subsequently moved to withdraw that brief and replace it with the Wende brief. We granted the motion.
Defendant's letter also includes a request for appointment of new counsel, which we denied. --------
The evidence at defendant's trial established his live-in girlfriend, Sandra Polanco (Polanco), was shot in the face from two feet away. The authorities found her dead body on a couch; there was a computer on her lap and her hand was still on the mouse. There were no signs of a struggle. In the weeks before Polanco's death, defendant asked a former girlfriend for a place to stay, and the day before Polanco's killing defendant sent the former girlfriend a message saying he would be no more trouble. When police later arrested defendant for Polanco's murder, he was in possession of a gun determined to have been the murder weapon, a one-way airline ticket to Mexico, and a phone with photos of Polanco taken after she was killed.
Defendant contends he was "not aware of the implications of law and legal issues related to [his] case" because a Spanish interpreter was not present for certain meetings with his attorney before trial. Although "[a] person unable to understand English who is charged with a crime has a right to an interpreter throughout the proceedings" (Cal. Const., art. I, § 14), this right does not "encompass those proceedings which take place outside the courtroom setting." (People v. Gutierrez (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 92, 101 (Gutierrez).) Even putting Gutierrez aside, defendant's claim fails because the appellate record provides no support for defendant's contention that no interpreter was present for meetings with counsel, nor any clue as to why an interpreter was absent even if such absence is assumed. (See People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266-67.)
Defendant additionally contends there was "no evidence of premeditation and deliberation" to support a first degree murder conviction. Defendant's messages to his former girlfriend, however, combined with evidence he approached and shot Polanco at close range without any apparent reaction on her part, constitute substantial evidence he acted willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation.
Defendant further contends the jury should have been instructed on second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter. Contrary to defendant's assertion, the jury was instructed as to the degrees of murder. As to voluntary manslaughter, the trial court had no duty to instruct the jury on that offense because there was no substantial evidence to support such an instruction. (People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 162.)
Finally, defendant obliquely asserts he received "ineffective assistance of counsel before and during trial" and there may be "constitutional and procedural errors that could be grounds for an appeal." The assertion is insufficiently presented and waived. (People v. Gallardo (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 51, 69, fn. 11.)
We have examined the appellate record and are satisfied defendant's attorney has complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue exists. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-82; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 122-24; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
BAKER, Acting P. J. We concur:
MOOR, J.
KIM, J.