Opinion
B312370
03-22-2022
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANSELMO CASTILLO, Defendant and Appellant.
Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. LA089072, Gregory A. Dohi, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
CURREY, J.
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Los Angeles County District Attorney filed an information charging defendant and appellant Anselmo Castillo with attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187, subd. (a); count one) and assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); count two). The information further alleged Castillo possessed, used and discharged a firearm in the commission of the offenses. (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.53, subds. (b), (c) & (d).)
All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Castillo waived his trial rights and pled no contest to the assault charge. He also admitted using a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) and inflicting great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) in the commission of the offense.
Sentencing was delayed several months. By the time of the scheduled sentencing, a new District Attorney took office and Castillo told the court he wanted to seek a better plea bargain. The deputy District Attorney informed Castillo and the trial court that the office would not offer a lesser deal. Castillo subsequently told the trial court he wanted to withdraw his earlier plea.
The trial court conducted a Marsden hearing at which Castillo told the trial court why he believed his plea was essentially coerced by the circumstances and why he thought, based on his lack of a prior record, he should have been offered a plea bargain with a lesser sentence. After hearing from defense counsel, the trial court denied Castillo's requests to replace counsel and allow the plea to be withdrawn.
The trial court then sentenced Castillo to the lower term of two years in state prison for the assault, enhanced by four years for the weapon allegation and three years for the great bodily injury allegation.
Castillo timely appealed. In his notice of appeal, he specified he was appealing matters occurring after the entry of his plea, including the denial of his Marsden motion. We appointed counsel to represent him. On September 14, 2021, appellate counsel filed a brief raising no issues and asking us to review the record independently. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Castillo did not respond to our letter advising him of his right to file supplemental briefing.
Following review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.
The following facts are taken from the probation report.
Castillo argued with the victim, both inside a liquor store and then outside the victim's residence. Inside the store, Castillo fired a gun at the ground in front of the victim. Outside the victim's residence, Castillo shot the victim in the abdomen.
DISCUSSION
We have examined the entire record, and are satisfied no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-279; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: WILLHITE, Acting P.J., MICON, J. [*]
[*] Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.