State v. Castillas
| Decision Date | 08 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. A-20-705.,A-20-705. |
| Parties | STATE OF NEBRASKA, APPELLEE, v. DAVID CASTILLAS, APPELLANT. |
| Court | Nebraska Court of Appeals |
(Memorandum Web Opinion)
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: GARY B. RANDALL, Judge. Affirmed.
Joshua W. Weir, of Black & Weir Law Offices, L.L.C., for appellant.
Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Nathan A. Liss for appellee.
David Castillas appeals from the order of the district court for Douglas County, denying his motion seeking postconviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. In that motion, Castillas alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective in relaying and providing reasonable advice regarding the plea offer presented by the State. We affirm.
Charges and Trial.
The charges against Castillas arose out of two driveby shootings at two different residential locations in Omaha, Nebraska, in June 2010. Bullets damaged the residence at one of the locations; at the other location, a bullet struck the arm of one of the residents, causing a nonfatal injury. Castillas and three other individuals were charged in connection with the shootings. Castillas was charged with discharging a firearm at a dwelling (Class ID felony), first degree assault (Class II felony), and two counts of use of a firearm to commit a felony (Class IC felonies). A subsequent amended information charged Castillas with two counts of discharging a firearm at a dwelling while in or near a motor vehicle (Class IC felonies), second degree assault (Class III felony), and three counts of use of a firearm to commit a felony (Class IC felonies). A second amended information filed on May 4, 2011, the first day of Castillas' trial, removed the allegations that Castillas had acted "recklessly" in connection with the counts of discharging a firearm at a dwelling and the second degree assault count. See State v. Castillas, 285 Neb. 174, 826 N.W.2d 255 (2013), disapproved on other grounds, State v. Lantz, 290 Neb. 757, 861 N.W.2d 728 (2015).
Following a jury trial in which all three codefendants testified against Castillas, the jury found Castillas guilty on all six charges of the second amended information. The district court sentenced Castillas to consecutive terms of imprisonment for an aggregate sentence of 30 to 80 years' imprisonment, which included a cumulative mandatory minimum of 25 years. See State v. Castillas, supra.
Direct Appeal.
Castillas, represented by his trial counsel, filed a direct appeal, alleging that (1) the district court erred in allowing testimony at trial concerning whether he possessed firearms after the second shooting, (2) the court erred in admitting photographs of Castillas possessing firearms, (3) the evidence at trial was insufficient, (4) the court erred in overruling Castillas' motion to dismiss at the end of the State's case, (5) the court erred in giving a jury instruction with regard to voluntary flight, and (6) the court erred in ordering a sentence that was substantially different from its intended sentence. The Nebraska Supreme Court rejected Castillas' claims and affirmed the judgments of conviction and sentences imposed. See id.
Postconviction Proceeding.
Castillas filed a timely verified motion for postconviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective in relaying and providing reasonable advice with regard to the State's plea offers. He alleged that his convictions should be vacated and he should be allowed to reconsider and accept one of the State's plea offers. Specifically, Castillas alleged that the State made two plea offers in this case, both of which would have been more favorable than going to trial on the six charges in the second amended information. According to Castillas, the first offer, extended after the filing of the original information, allegedly would have dismissed Count III (first degree assault) in exchange for his pleas to the other three charges. He claimed that the second offer, extended about a week before trial and prior to the filing of either amended information, would have allowed him to plead to four charges (but with Count III reduced from first degree to second degree assault). Castillas alleged both plea offers included a provision that if he insisted on going to trial, the State would amend the information to add two additional counts. In his motion, Castillas alleged that he rejected the State's plea offers because his trial counsel advised him that the first offer was "'not even close to a deal'" and the second offer was "'still not a good deal'" based on the mandatory minimum sentences for the charges to which he would be pleading. Castillas alleged that his trial counsel communicated that there would be no case against him if his codefendants were discredited, that his trial counsel "felt really confident" he could discredit their testimony, and that his counsel estimated a "50/50" chance the jury would believe thecodefendants. Castillas alleged that he would have accepted the State's first plea offer if his trial counsel had not "understated the risks and overstated the prospects of prevailing at trial" and that this would have resulted in more favorable sentences than those actually imposed.
An evidentiary hearing was held on Castillas' postconviction motion. At the hearing, the district court received an application for attorney fees filed by Castillas' trial counsel, depositions of Castillas and his trial counsel, and an affidavit of the lead prosecutor who handled the case.
In her affidavit, the prosecutor noted that Castillas was represented by another attorney before his trial attorney was appointed. She stated her understanding, based on conversations with both attorneys that Castillas "always wanted to pursue his right to trial," and she indicated that because Castillas wanted to go to trial, "plea negotiations were never extensive." According to the prosecutor, she advised both attorneys that the State's offer, in exchange for Castillas' pleas to the first three counts of the original information (discharging a firearm, use of a firearm, first degree assault), was to dismiss Count IV (the second use of a firearm charge) and to not add any additional charges, which would have included more charges carrying mandatory minimum sentences. The prosecutor noted that the State waited "until the eve of trial" to file additional charges based on her understanding that Castillas' trial attorney was still trying to convince Castillas to accept the plea offer "in light of the cooperating witnesses who were deposed." She stated that "[u]p until trial," the State would have allowed Castillas to enter a plea to the Counts I-III "as originally offered" and that it would have also reduced the assault charge "to a second degree assault based on the evidence as it came out during discovery," which the State eventually did "[f]or trial strategy purposes" in the second amended information that was filed adding the additional charges. According to the prosecutor, Castillas "would never have received a better offer," given that one of his codefendants who cooperated and testified at Castillas' trial entered a plea to second degree assault and two counts of discharging a firearm at a dwelling.
Castillas' deposition testimony was consistent with the allegations in his postconviction motion. Castillas testified to his understanding that the State had offered to dismiss Count III (the assault charge) if he pled to the other three counts of the original information, and he indicated that his attorney informed him the minimum sentence he was facing was "[a] mandatory 15," although "it could have been a higher sentence." According to Castillas, the attorney told him not to accept the plea offer "because it wasn't even close to a deal." Castillas testified that after the depositions of Castillas' codefendants were taken, his attorney was confident of being able to discredit them as witnesses and that the attorney told him if they were discredited, there would not be a case against Castillas. Castillas testified that the attorney estimated a "50/50" chance that they could discredit the codefendants as witnesses. Castillas testified that the attorney never really discussed the State's plea offer after their first meeting until the end of April 2011 when Castillas was transported for a hearing and was informed that the State was offering to allow him to plead to the original four charges (with Count III being reduced to second degree assault) in exchange for which the State would agree not to add two additional charges. Castillas testified that he was given about 5 minutes in court to consider the second plea offer but that he rejected it because the attorney led him to believe that he "had a strong chance of winning at trial." Castillas denied that the attorney advised him about the strength of the State's case or the actual possible total sentence he was facing if they went to trial. According to Castillas, his attorney simply told him that if he lost at trial he would "come out [of prison as] an old man." Castillas testified that if he had known hewas facing a minimum of 27½ years in prison for the six offenses of which he was convicted at trial, he would have accepted the State's plea offer at the time of the hearing at the end of April 2011. He also testified that he was not aware that the State was contemplating adding two additional counts prior to that April hearing.
Castillas acknowledged that he told the attorney he was innocent and provided his attorney with an alibi at one point, which prompted the attorney to file a notice of alibi with the court. Castillas testified that after reviewing the depositions of his codefendants, he continued to express his...
To continue reading
Request your trial