Filed 6/4/21 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE THE PEOPLE, B298388 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA078121) v. ERNESTO CASILLAS, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Alan B. Honeycutt, Judge. Affirmed. Carlo Andreani, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Michael J. Wise, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________ * Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts II, III, IV, and V of the Discussion. A jury convicted Ernesto Casillas of attempted premeditated murder and assault on a peace officer, assault with a firearm, and two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon. The jury found true allegations that Casillas personally used and discharged a firearm, and Casillas admitted he suffered a prior strike within the meaning of the Three Strikes Law. The trial court sentenced Casillas to a determinate term of 18 years, followed by a consecutive term of 55 years to life. On appeal, Casillas raises five issues, contending that: (1) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of Casillas’ immigration status and two prior deportations; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s finding that the attempted murder was premeditated; (3) the trial court erred in denying Casillas’ requested self-defense and imperfect self-defense instructions; (4) the trial court violated Casillas’ due process rights when it instructed the jury, pursuant to CALCRIM No. 315, to consider an eyewitness’s level of certainty; and (5) the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct during closing argument. In the published portion of this opinion, we conclude the trial court properly admitted evidence of Casillas’ immigration status and deportation history on the limited issue of motive. In the unpublished portion of the opinion, we determine that sufficient evidence supports the jury’s premeditation finding, and that the record is devoid of any evidence that would warrant the self-defense instructions requested by Casillas. Discerning no cognizable or reversible error in Casillas’ remaining claims, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The charges arose out of two separate incidents that occurred within 12 hours of each other. In the first incident, Casillas pointed 2 a firearm at a civilian motorist; in the second incident, Casillas shot at a deputy sheriff during a traffic stop. A. Prosecution Evidence 1. May 5, 2010: Counts 4 and 5 a. Assault on Marcos Ramos On May 5, 2010, at approximately 2:30 p.m., Marco Ramos was driving alone off Imperial Highway in an industrial area near his workplace. In his rearview mirror he saw a black Chevrolet truck with a gold logo approaching at a fast rate. The truck almost hit the rear of his vehicle, and then “tailgat[ed]” him in the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals