Filed 7/16/26 P. v. Castillo CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE,
F090006
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. Nos. DF018464A,
v. DF018537A)
BERNARD ALEXANDER CASTILLO,
OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Jose R.
Benavides, Judge.
Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
-ooOoo-
* Before Hill, P. J., DeSantos, J. and Guerra, J.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant and defendant Bernard Alexander Castillo (appellant) entered pleas in
multiple cases and was sentenced to an aggregate term of four years in prison. On
appeal, appellate counsel filed a brief that summarized the facts with citations to the
record, raised no issues, and asked this court to independently review the record. (People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant did not file a supplemental brief on his own
behalf. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Case No. DF018464A
On August 22, 2024, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of Kern County
case No. DF018464A charging appellant and a codefendant with committing the
following offenses on or about August 14, 2024: count 1, receiving stolen property, a
motor vehicle (Pen. Code,1 § 496d, subd. (a)); count 2, taking or driving a vehicle
without consent of the owner, Enterprise Rental Car (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a));
count 3, embezzlement of an amount greater than $950 from Enterprise Rental Car
(§ 503); and count 5, misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance,
methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). Appellant was separately
charged with count 4, misdemeanor destroying evidence, methamphetamine (§ 135).
As to the felony charges, appellant was alleged to have a prior strike conviction
for attempted murder, and aggravating circumstances.
Case No. DF018537A
On September 9, 2024, a complaint was filed in case No. DF018537A charging
appellant with committing the following offenses on or about June 10, 2024: count 1,
receiving stolen property, a motor vehicle (§ 496d, subd. (a)); and count 2, driving or
taking a vehicle without consent of the owner, Enterprise Rental Car (Veh. Code,
1 All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
2.
§ 10851, subd. (a)). In count 3, he was charged with embezzlement in an amount greater
than $950 from Enterprise Rental Car, committed on or between June 10 and June 28,
2024 (§ 503), with the same prior strike conviction and aggravating circumstances.
Appellant’s Plea Agreement
On April 16, 2025, the trial court convened the preliminary hearing in case
Nos. DF018537A and DF018464A, but stated that appellant was going to waive the
preliminary hearing and enter pleas in both cases. The court stated the plea agreement
would also address sentencing in case Nos. DF017702A and DM102357A, which are not
a part of this appeal.
The trial court stated the terms of the negotiated disposition:
“It’s my understanding that you’ve reached an agreement whereby
in … [case No.] DF01846[4]A …, you’re going to be entering a plea to
[c]ount 1 … being in possession of a stolen vehicle. And [c]ount 5—as a
felony. And [c]ount 5, being in possession of a controlled substance.
You’re also going to admit a prior strike.
“At the time of sentencing, you’ll be sentenced to the low term of
16 months doubled due to the strike for 32 months. Second case,
DF018537[A], you’re going to be entering a plea to [c]ount 2, taking a
vehicle without the owner’s consent.
You’ll be sentenced to … consecutive one-third the midterm, which
is eight months. You’re going to be admitting the strike. One-third the
midterm eight months doubled due to the strike, for a total of 16 months.”
The trial court stated the aggregate sentence for the two cases would be four years.
In addition, the court would impose concurrent terms in case No. DF017702A and
dismiss case No. DM102357A. Appellant said he understood and agreed with the terms
of the plea agreement.
After appellant was advised of and waived his constitutional rights, he pleaded no
contest in case No. DF018464A to count 1, felony possession of a stolen vehicle, and
count 5, felony possession of a controlled substance, and admitted the prior strike
3.
conviction. In case No. DF018537A, appellant pleaded no contest to count 2, felony
taking or driving a vehicle without consent, and admitted the prior strike conviction.
Sentencing
On May 14, 2025, the trial court conducted the sentencing hearing for appellant’s
cases.
In case No. DF18464A, the trial court denied probation and as to count 1, imposed
the lower term of 16 months, doubled to 32 months as the second strike sentence. In case
No. DF018537A, the court imposed a consecutive term of eight months (one-third the
midterm) doubled to 16 months as the second strike sentence for count 2. Appellant’s
aggregate sentence was four years.
In case No. DF017702A, the trial court granted appellant’s motion to dismiss the
prior strike conviction and imposed concurrent terms for the two counts in that case. The
court dismissed case No. DM102357A.
On June 17, 2025, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and the trial court
granted his request for a certificate of probable cause.
DISCUSSION
As noted above, appellate counsel filed a Wende brief with this court. The brief
also includes counsel’s declaration that appellant was advised he could file his own brief
with this court. On March 12, 2026, this court advised appellant by letter that he could
file a supplemental letter or brief raising any arguable issues in the consolidated appeals.
Appellant did not do so.
After independent review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable factual or
legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
4.