Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Reversal ‘In Its Entirety’ Did Not Vacate Valid Conviction
Opinion Says Error During Second Trial of Murder Charges, After Failure to Reach Verdict on Those Counts in Prior Proceeding, Does Not Undo Assault Conviction in First Case Despite Concurrent Sentences
By Kimber Cooley, Staff Writer
Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal held yesterday that the reversal of a judgment “in its entirety” for prejudicial error after a second trial on two murder charges—following a prior jury’s inability to reach a verdict on those counts—did not mandate the retrial of a valid assault conviction in the first trial.
The dispute arose in a case in which the Orange County District Attorney’s Office filed a petition for a writ of prohibition/mandate challenging the trial judge’s order for a retrial on the assault conviction.
Presiding Justice Kathleen E. O’Leary wrote the unpublished opinion granting the writ, finding that the order by Orange Superior Court Judge Patrick H. Donahue exceeded the court’s jurisdiction. Justices Maurice Sanchez and Thomas A. Delaney joined in the opinion.
Two Trials
The prosecution charged defendant Ivan Castellanos in a single case for crimes occurring on two dates in August 2011. He was accused in count three with committing an aggravated assault on David Rodriguez with a vehicle for the benefit of a criminal street gang for actions occurring on Aug. 7, 2011.
He was charged in counts one and two with the special circumstances gang murder of Tyler Sanchez and the first-degree murder of Mauricio Martin, each occurring on Aug. 13, 2011.
In the first trial, the jury convicted Castellanos on count three and found true the gang enhancement. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on counts one and two and Donahue declared a mistrial.
The prosecution retried Castellanos on counts one and two and the second jury convicted on both counts and found true all allegations and enhancements.
On December 11, 2020, Donahue sentenced Castellanos to life without the possibility of parole on counts one and two and imposed a concurrent sentence on count three.
Second Case Appeal
Castellanos appealed, arguing that Donahue improperly struck a juror from the panel during deliberations. The defendant also successfully sought leave to file a supplemental brief on the effect of Assembly Bill 333, enacted in October 2021 during the pendency of the appeal, which amends the gang enhancement statute.
In a July 2022 opinion, written by O’Leary and joined by Sanchez and then-Orange Superior Court Judge Linda S. Marks (now a full-time neutral), sitting by assignment, the Fourth District reversed the judgment of conviction in the second trial based on Donahue’s discharge of a juror without making a proper inquiry. The panel did not address Castellanos’ other claims of error and said:
“The judgment is reversed in its entirety. Retrial of the case is not barred by the double jeopardy clauses of the state and federal Constitutions.”
Castellanos filed a motion, on remand, to sever trial on counts one and two from count three. The prosecution objected, arguing that count three did not require retrial.
Donahue ordered retrial on all counts, finding that the reversal of the judgment “in its entirety” operated to vacate the convictions on all three charges.
Jurisdiction on Remand
O’Leary noted that a trial court’s jurisdiction upon the issuance of a remittur is limited solely to the orders necessary to carry the judgment to effect and that the wording of the dispositional language governs the interpretation of what is required.
Turning to Donahue’s order, she wrote:
“Here, the trial court erred by construing our reversal of the judgment as vacating the verdict and finding as to count 3. In our opinion, we only addressed an error in the second trial (counts 1 and 2)—the court erred by discharging a juror during deliberations. This error had no bearing on the first trial concerning count 3.”
Castellanos asserts that the passage of AB 333 raises issues as to the gang enhancement on count three and that his supplemental briefing on the bill applied to both the first and second trials.
O’Leary acknowledged that AB 333 may present challenges to the conviction on count three, but said:
“Based on the limited scope of our prior opinion—the second trial—we did not need to address application of AB 333 to the gang enhancement attached to count 3—the first trial. Litigation of that issue continues and can be litigated in the trial court and, depending on the outcome of the remaining proceedings, appealed in the future.”
Confusing Circumstances
O’Leary noted that the nature of the proceedings in the case led to some confusion and remarked:
“The circumstances of this case lend themselves to some confusion. The judgment needed to be reversed in its entirely because the final judgment—the sentence imposed, could not stand. The court imposed a sentence on count 3 concurrent with counts on which Castellanos no longer stands convicted. A new sentence must be imposed on count 3 after counts 1 and 2 are resolved. This then will become the final judgment on the case.”
She added:
“Castellanos stands convicted of count 3 for the benefit of a criminal street gang. We direct the trial court to vacate the sentence on count 3 and the gang enhancement because it is part of the judgment it imposed at sentencing after the second trial. We order that Castellanos is not to be retried on count 3. Castellanos may be retried on counts 1 and 2.”
The case is People v. Superior Court (Castellanos), G063460.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company