Opinion
E053352
02-10-2012
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MIGUEL JOAQUIN CASTILLO, Defendant and Appellant.
Paul Stubb, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super.Ct.No. RIF10003217)
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Patrick F. Magers, Judge. Affirmed.
Paul Stubb, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
On October 13, 2010, an information charged defendant and appellant Miguel Joaquin Castillo with making criminal threats under Penal Code section 422. The information also alleged that (1) defendant had three prior convictions and had not remained free of prison custody for five years after serving the prison sentence for the convictions under section 667.5, subdivision (b); (2) one of the prior convictions was a serious felony under section 667, subdivision (a); and (3) the serious felony was a serious and violent felony under sections 667, subdivisions (c) and (e)(1), and 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1).
All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
Defendant entered pleas of not guilty and denied the prior convictions. On February 4, 2011, a jury found defendant guilty as charged.
On April 1, 2011, a bench trial on defendant's prior convictions was held; defendant admitted the prior convictions. Defendant then moved to have the strike prior dismissed under section 1385 and People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. The trial court denied defendant's motion.
Thereafter, the trial court sentenced defendant to a total term of seven years eight months in prison on count 1 (low term of 16 months, doubled for the prior strike conviction under section 667, subdivision (e)(1), plus five years for the prior conviction under section 667, subdivision (a)). The court then struck the section 667.5, subdivision (b) priors under section 1385. The court also imposed statutory fines and fees, and awarded defendant 300 days credit (200 actual days and 100 conduct days).
On April 7, 2011, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On the morning of April 15, 2010, City of Corona Police Officer Desiree Grimes was dispatched to investigate an incident at a Corona school. When she arrived at the school, the officer met with a school employee, Irene Garcia (the victim). The victim was visibly upset and crying.
The victim explained to Officer Grimes that for about 45 minutes that morning, defendant had called the victim's cellular telephone about 15 times. The victim answered twice; defendant left numerous voice mail messages; and defendant sent several text messages.
When the victim answered the phone the first time, defendant was angry. He called her names and accused her of lying to him. During the second call, defendant stated that he was going to hurt the victim or people around her, and she was "going to pay for this."
The text messages and voice mail messages were also threatening in nature.
After listening to the voicemail messages, the victim called her mom to get her out of the house. She also called her kids because she was afraid that they would get hurt. She "was afraid for their lives." The victim was in a panic; she was scared and overwhelmed.
Officer Grimes spent about an hour with the victim. She investigated the incident and recommended that the victim get a restraining order. During that hour, the victim cried intermittently. While the officer was with the victim, the officer took photographs of the call logs and text messages.
Later, when Officer Grimes was at the police station, she called the number that the victim stated belonged to defendant. When a man answered the telephone, the officer asked if she had reached defendant. Defendant replied, "Yes. Who's this?" When the officer identified herself, defendant hung up.
In addition to providing evidence related to the April 15, 2010, incident, the prosecutor introduced prior acts evidence to show that the victim had experienced reasonable and sustained fear. Essentially, over a three-year period, defendant "went from being nice to being mean." Defendant had thrown a drink in the victim's face, had hit the victim's nose with his elbow, and had "yanked" on the steering wheel of the victim's car while the victim was driving.
On one occasion, the victim tried to end her relationship with defendant while they were in a car on a freeway. Defendant reacted by crying, leaning out the window, and claiming that he was going to jump out of the moving car and onto the freeway. In response, the victim pulled over and ended up getting choked by defendant; she was hospitalized.
On another occasion, defendant took the keys from the victim's car to prevent her from leaving when the car was stuck in the middle of the street. The victim had to get her car towed home.
On the night before the incident, defendant called the victim and told her that "he could give somebody a bag of dope to kill [the victim]." At that point, the victim realized that defendant was "doing drugs." The victim did not call the police or tell anybody because she did not care if she lived or died; she "was tired . . . tired of arguing . . . tired of trying to make [defendant] believe that [she] wasn't with anybody." She did not really care if defendant killed her, as long as he left her family alone.
The defense offered no evidence and argued that the prosecutor failed to prove elements of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
ANALYSIS
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed briefs under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief in both cases, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKinster
J.
We concur:
Hollenhorst
Acting P.J.
Miller
J.