People v. Facciuto CA3 ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Filed 4/28/21 P. v. Facciuto CA3
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
    California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
    publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
    or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
    (Butte)
    ----
    THE PEOPLE,                                                                                  C089668
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Super. Ct. No. 18CF03794)
    v.
    ALTON JAMES FACCIUTO,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    Appointed counsel for defendant Alton James Facciuto has asked this court to
    conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable
    issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal.3d 436
    .) Finding no arguable error in
    defendant’s favor, we affirm.
    FACTUAL BACKGROUND
    At the plea hearing in the trial court, the parties stipulated the factual basis for
    defendant’s plea could be taken from the probation report. Accordingly, the factual
    background here is summarized from the probation report.
    1
    In August 2017, defendant was released from prison. He had a history of mental
    illness, which made him “unpredictable” and caused his parents (Ralph & Sherry) to be
    “afraid” of him.
    On January 18, 2018, Butte County Behavioral Health contacted Ralph and said
    defendant was “ ‘jumped’ ” the night before. They wanted one of defendant’s parents to
    pick him up and take him to the hospital, so Sherry did. At the hospital, however,
    defendant refused medical treatment and walked out. Sherry called Ralph and told him
    she did not want defendant to return to their home. Nevertheless, when Ralph and Sherry
    returned home later that afternoon defendant was there. He appeared to his parents to be
    “ ‘in a different world’ ”; he had a “blank stare” that reminded Ralph of “ ‘shark eyes.’ ”
    Ralph and Sherry knew defendant needed help they could not provide.
    Ralph told defendant he could not stay with them unless he took his medication.
    Defendant agreed. Ralph called the county’s health crisis center and they told him to
    bring defendant in so the staff could give him his medication. Ralph and Sherry agreed
    they would take defendant together. Defendant did not want Ralph to go; he wanted
    Sherry to take him. Ralph refused and told defendant the three of them would leave
    together.
    While defendant stood outside their home, Sherry went to an outbuilding to get
    blankets. Approximately 20 minutes later, defendant went back inside the home without
    Sherry. Ralph asked where Sherry was, and defendant said he did not know. Defendant
    also said, “ ‘I guess I don’t have to kill myself now.’ ” Ralph understood that to mean
    defendant was feeling better.
    Later, Ralph heard his car engine engage and drive away. He assumed defendant
    and Sherry were leaving together because he still had not found her on their property.
    But Ralph was worried because Sherry was afraid of defendant and would not leave with
    him by herself. Ralph called the Butte County Sheriff and requested a welfare check on
    Sherry and defendant. He then reported Sherry missing.
    2
    When Sheriff’s deputies arrived at the family’s property, they searched the barn.
    Inside the barn they found Sherry’s dead body, wrapped in blankets, hidden under
    cardboard boxes, a suitcase, and plastic bins. They also found a piece of a black T-shirt
    from the plastic bin around Sherry’s neck along with corresponding ligature marks.
    Ralph told the deputies he was certain it was defendant who killed her.
    The deputies issued a “ ‘Be on the Lookout’ ” for Ralph’s missing car. The car
    was soon found outside a furniture store with the engine running, the lights on, and the
    front passenger-side door open. A private security officer removed the keys from the
    ignition and secured the car. They found defendant the next day. As the deputies were
    arresting defendant, he blurted out that he had not hurt anyone, would never hurt anyone,
    and was sorry for trespassing. Deputies saw scratches on defendant’s face, wrists, and
    hands.
    Following further investigation, the People charged defendant with first degree
    murder. The People further alleged defendant was previously convicted of a serious or
    violent felony and a strike offense and served a prior term in prison. Soon thereafter,
    defendant’s counsel advised the court of their concern about defendant’s competency to
    stand trial. The legal proceedings were suspended pending a competency evaluation, to
    be completed by Don Stembridge, Ph.D.
    The trial court subsequently reviewed Dr. Stembridge’s report and evaluation and
    on October 17, 2018, found defendant competent to stand trial. The court reinstated the
    legal proceedings and presided over the preliminary hearing on November 28, 2018.
    In April 2019, the parties negotiated a plea agreement. Pursuant to that agreement,
    defendant pleaded no contest to second degree murder and admitted as true the allegation
    he was previously convicted of a strike offense. In exchange, the People moved to
    dismiss the balance of the allegations as well as the charges in Butte County Superior
    Court case No. 10851.
    3
    Consistent with the terms of his plea agreement, the trial court sentenced
    defendant to a term of 30 years to life in state prison. The court awarded defendant 482
    days of custody credit and ordered him to pay various fines and fees. Defendant appeals;
    he did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
    DISCUSSION
    Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural
    history of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether, on
    appeal, there are any arguable issues in defendant’s favor. (People v. Wende, supra,
    
    25 Cal.3d 436
    .) Defendant was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental
    brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have
    elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.
    Our review of the record disclosed no arguable errors in defendant’s favor.
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed.
    /s/
    HOCH, J.
    We concur:
    /s/
    ROBIE, Acting P. J.
    /s/
    RENNER, J.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: C089668

Filed Date: 4/28/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/28/2021