P. v. Castanon
An information, filed on April 6, 2011, charged Manuel J. Castanon with one count of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211)[1] and specially alleged that he had used a firearm while committing the offense (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). The information also specially alleged that Castanon (1) had a prior conviction for assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)) that qualified as a strike under the “Three Strikes†law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and subjected him to a five-year enhancement under section 667, subdivision (a)(1); and (2) had served a prior prison term within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b).
The jury found Castanon guilty of second degree robbery. It found not true the special allegation of firearm use. In a bifurcated proceeding, Castanon admitted that he had a prior conviction for assault with a firearm for purposes of sentencing under the Three Strikes law, section 667, subdivision (a)(1), and section 667.5, subdivision (b). The trial court sentenced Castanon to a state prison term of 11 years, consisting of the middle term of three years for the second degree robbery, doubled under the Three Strikes law, plus five years for the section 667, subdivision (a)(1), enhancement. The court stayed execution of a one-year term for the section 667.5, subdivision (b), prior prison term.
On appeal, Castanon contends that the trial court’s omission of CALJIC No. 2.90, the standard reasonable doubt instruction, requires reversal of the judgment. We conclude that the court’s failure to define reasonable doubt for the jury, which amounts to state law error, was not harmless under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836. We thus reverse the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Castanon