P. v. Castillo













Filed 2/10/12 P. v. Castillo CA4/2













NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.







IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF >CALIFORNIA>



FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION TWO






>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MIGUEL JOAQUIN CASTILLO, Defendant and Appellant.

E053352 (Super.Ct.No. RIF10003217) OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior
Court of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">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 Codehref="#_ftn1"
name="_ftnref1" title="">^[1] 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).

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





/s/ McKinster

J.





We concur:



/s/ Hollenhorst

Acting
P.J.

/s/ Miller

J.