People v. Castellano
245 Cal. Rptr. 3d 138
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2019Background
- Defendant Narcisco Castellano was convicted by a jury of possession of cocaine base for sale; he admitted prior conviction/prior prison-term enhancements and received a six-year term (three years county jail + three years supervised release).
- The trial court imposed assessments and fees: $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code §70373), $40 court operations assessment (Pen. Code §1465.8), $50 criminal laboratory analysis fee (Health & Saf. Code §11372.5) (with an additional construction penalty), and a $300 minimum restitution fine (Pen. Code §1202.4(b)) with a corresponding suspended $300 parole revocation fine.
- On appeal Castellano primarily argued the People’s expert impermissibly relied on race and/or national origin in responding to a hypothetical, violating due process and equal protection; he also claimed ineffective assistance for failing to exclude and for eliciting similar testimony.
- After this court decided People v. Dueñas, Castellano challenged the imposition of the fees/assessments and sought a stay of execution of the restitution fine absent an ability-to-pay determination.
- The appellate court affirmed the conviction but remanded to allow Castellano to request an ability-to-pay hearing under Dueñas; if he proves inability to pay, certain fees/assessments must be stricken and restitution execution stayed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the People’s expert impermissibly relied on race/national origin in a hypothetical, violating due process/equal protection | Castellano: expert used race/national origin to form opinion; constitutional rights violated | People: expert testimony admissible (implicit) and conviction should stand | Court affirmed conviction; rejected relief on this ground (no change to conviction) |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to exclude and for eliciting similar testimony | Castellano: counsel failed to object and elicited prejudicial testimony, causing prejudice | People: counsel’s conduct not prejudicial or objection would not have succeeded | Court rejected ineffective assistance claim; conviction affirmed |
| Whether Dueñas requires reversal of fees/assessments or stay of restitution without an ability-to-pay hearing | Castellano: assessments/fees unconstitutional without ability-to-pay finding; restitution execution must be stayed | People: issue forfeited because not raised at trial | Court: forfeiture excused given Dueñas was newly announced; remand for opportunity to request an ability-to-pay hearing |
| Scope of remedy on remand if inability to pay proven | Castellano: seeks reversal of assessments and stay of restitution execution | People: would enforce amounts unless defendant proves inability to pay | Court: if defendant proves inability to pay, strike court facilities assessment, court operations assessment, and criminal lab fee; stay execution of restitution fine; if not proven, enforcement may proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (constitutional requirement to determine ability to pay before imposing certain nonpunitive assessments and to stay restitution execution when inability to pay is established)
- O'Connor v. Ohio, 385 U.S. 92 (U.S. 1966) (forfeiture excused when objection at trial would have been futile due to lack of controlling law)
- People v. Doherty, 67 Cal.2d 9 (Cal. 1967) (same principle excusing failure to raise novel legal claim at trial)
- People v. Brooks, 3 Cal.5th 1 (Cal. 2017) (recognizing courts excuse forfeiture when objection would have been futile under then-existing law)