P. v. Castillo
Filed 9/17/12 P. v. Castillo CA2/4
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
THE
PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ANTHONY
CASTILLO,
Defendant and Appellant.
B236595
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. PA068091)
APPEAL from a
judgment of the Superior Court of
County, Cynthia L. Ulfig, Judge. Affirmed with instructions, and remanded.
Jennifer
Hansen, by appointment of the Court of Appeal under the California Appellate
Project, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D.
Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette and Lance E. Winters, Assistant
Attorneys General, Lawrence M. Daniels and Linda C. Johnson, Supervising Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
________________________________
INTRODUCTION
Anthony Castillo appeals
from a sentence of imprisonment following his convictions for grand theft and
should have been imposed and stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654, as the
theft and the burglary were both part of an indivisible course of conduct with
a single intent and objective. The
People agree, as do we. Accordingly, we
will remand the matter to the superior court with instructions to stay the
sentence as to count 2. Otherwise, we
affirm.
A jury found
appellant guilty of grand theft of personal property (Pen. Code, § 487, subd.
(a); count 2)
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1] and second degree commercial burglary (§ 459;
count 3).
title="">[2]
He was sentenced to three years in county jail on count 3, and two years
concurrent on count 2. Execution of the
sentence was suspended as to both counts, and appellant was placed on formal
probation for five years. There was a
minute order for the sentencing hearing,
but no abstract of judgment. Appellant
timely appealed.
Geisler’s Glass Company (Geisler’s
Glass) is a family-owned business that installs glass products, such as
windows, shower doors, and mirrors.
Appellant, his father John Castillo, and his younger brother, Johnny
Castillo, were former employees of Geisler’s Glass. Appellant and his father were fired October
2, 2009. Johnny was laid off for lack of work a week
later.
Debra Key was the office manager of
Geisler’s Glass. On November
20, 2009, a
Friday, Key was the last one to leave the office. Key testified that when she left, she ensured
that the business’s two storage units -- units F and G -- were locked. She also testified there was no business
planned for that weekend.
When Key came to work the following
Monday (November 23, 2009), she noticed signs of a
burglary. The business’s large glass
polishing machine was missing and a white truck was gone. She also saw that chop saws, routers, drills,
and diamond drills were missing. When
she tried to close the door to unit G, she could not do so because the dead
bolt was bent. There was also damage to
unit F’s door. She called the
police. Dennis Geisler, the owner of
Geisler’s Glass, estimated that the value of the stolen items totaled
$21,870.
Dan O’Donnell, a machinist who owned
a shop in the same industrial park where Geisler’s Glass is located, testified
he saw appellant on November 22, 2009.
That afternoon, he and his wife went to his shop to pick up some
boxes. After leaving, O’Donnell drove by
units F and G. He saw three trucks and
three people in front of the units: one
was appellant, one was an older man O’Donnell thought was appellant’s father,
and the third was an unknown man in his twenties. O’Donnell had seen appellant and his father
20 or more times in the area. On this
occasion, O’Donnell saw the older man loading a truck with boxes containing
Makita drills. He thought the men were
from the glass company. O’Donnell
testified that appellant moved a ladder that was blocking O’Donnell’s car, and
O’Donnell drove away.
The next morning, two uniformed
officers came into O’Donnell’s shop inquiring as to whether he had seen
anything that weekend. O’Donnell told
them he had seen the three men working on Sunday. When O’Donnell left work that afternoon, he
stopped by Geisler’s Glass and spoke with Key.
She told him that they had been burglarized. He told her that he had seen her employees
working on Sunday, and he gave her his business card. When O’Donnell was later interviewed by the
police, he picked appellant out of a photo lineup.
The parties stipulated that
appellant’s father pled no contest to grand theft of personal property from
Geisler’s Glass, occurring between November 20 and November
23, 2009.
Appellant
contends his sentence on count 2 should be stayed under section 654, as the
crimes charged in count 2 (theft) and count 3 (burglary) were part of an
indivisible course of conduct with a single intent and objective. The People agree. After reviewing the record, we conclude that
section 654 barred multiple punishment for the grand theft and
is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law shall be
punished under the provision that provides for the longest potential term of
imprisonment, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more
than one provision.â€]; People v. Cline
(1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1327, 1336 [ordering abstract of judgment corrected where
the People conceded that convictions for grand theft and commercial burglary
“arose from an indivisible course of conductâ€].)
The matter is remanded to the
superior court with instructions to stay the sentence imposed on count 2. In all other respects, the judgment is
affirmed. The clerk of the superior
court is directed to prepare an abstract of judgment as set forth in this
opinion and to forward it to the Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
MANELLA,
J.
We concur:
EPSTEIN, P. J.
SUZUKAWA, J.
citations are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated.
count 1, grand theft auto.
