This Woman Spent 19 Years in Jail for a Murder She Didn't Commit. Now ICE Is Trying To Deport Her.
Deportation proceedings are a second layer of prosecution for people who have either served their sentences or had their convictions overturned.

Sandra Castaneda, an immigrant from Mexico, has called the United States home for over 30 years. She spent 19 of those years doing prison time for a murder she didn't commit—and even though her conviction was overturned last year, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is still trying to get her deported.
Castaneda came to the U.S. on a green card in 1991 at the age of 9 and grew up in South Central Los Angeles, where she became friends with members of a local gang. On May 10, 2002, Castaneda was driving a group of gang-affiliated friends to a restaurant when they encountered members of a rival gang. One of the passengers began to fire shots at them, killing one person and injuring another. Court documents indicate that Castaneda had possessions and tattoos linking her to the Florencia 13 gang, though Castaneda testified that she had quit the gang several years prior to the shooting incident.
The shooter and other passengers fled the car, but Castaneda was apprehended by the police. On May 7, 2003, the Los Angeles County Superior Court sentenced the 21-year-old Castaneda to 40 years to life in prison for second-degree murder. She had no prior criminal record, save a few tickets for violating curfew in her youth, according to advocates. "Prosecutors did not allege that she took part in the killing or had any role in planning it," writes Sam Levin for The Guardian, which first reported on Castaneda's case. "The shooter was never charged."
Castaneda was convicted of murder despite the fact that she didn't fire the lethal shots—something that the California 2nd District Court of Appeal acknowledged. Her conviction was made possible by California's felony murder rule, which held that anyone involved in a death that occurred during the commission of a felony could face a murder charge despite having no intent to kill. As Reason's Billy Binion has reported, felony murder rules have repeatedly led to murder charges for individuals who never directly killed anyone. For instance, Ryan Holle was sentenced to life in prison because his housemate committed a murder after borrowing his car, even though Holle himself was 1.5 miles away from the scene of the crime when it took place.
California's felony murder rule has since been altered by S.B. 1437, under which "felony murder can now be prosecuted only when the accused had the intent to kill." The 2018 law is also retroactive, giving those convicted of felony murder the chance to petition for reduced sentences.
This reform led to a judge dismissing Castaneda's conviction in 2021 and ordering her immediate release. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) had commuted her sentence one year prior, noting "her positive conduct in prison, the fact that she was a youthful offender, and her good prospects for successful community reentry." But on July 27, the day Castaneda was scheduled to be released, she was instead picked up by ICE. With no available beds in California, she was sent out of state and is now in ICE custody at the Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Georgia. The agency is seeking to deport her.
Getting a conviction expunged doesn't necessarily shield migrants from immigration law enforcement. "Such alterations will have legal effect for immigration purposes if they are based on a procedural or substantive defect in the underlying criminal proceeding, but not if they are based on reasons unrelated to the merits, such as rehabilitation," according to a 2019 Department of Justice decision. Several states, including California, "have passed laws in recent years to help people dismiss convictions and ensure they are protected from deportation, but the federal government has fought to circumvent them," writes Levin.
That's why Castaneda is battling deportation proceedings, despite her legal permanent resident status. The U.S. immigration system sometimes doles out noncriminal punishments even after a migrant's jail time is up, adding a second layer of prosecution for people who have either served their sentences or had their convictions overturned.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
She broke the law, and the law is the law. If you don't like it, leave. Same with asset forfeiture, the drug war, professional licensing, and everything else. All laws are just and not to be questioned. Anyone who doesn't obey deserves what they get.
I think laws should be applied pretty uniformly. This is, of course, a complicated thing in general, but is a good rule of thumb. This idea we seem to have of passing whatever laws but trusting judges or those in power to only use it on "bad guys" barely counts as rule of law.
The capriciousness of much of our enforcement is both why we have so many laws to begin with, and is also the inevitable path to tyranny.
I was just pointing out the cognitive dissonance and utter lack of principles of the "They broke the law! Deport them! If you don't like the law you hate America!" crowd who will cheerfully question other laws. But in the case of immigration the law is sacred.
Yeah, it's why I attempted to thread that needle. I understand your point, and also dislike the people who operate under the old adage of "For my friends, anything; for my enemies, the law."
Never heard that one. It's pretty apt.
Getting paid every month online from home more than $12k by doing very simple and easy job in part time. (yhu20) Last month i have got paid $11547 from this easy home based online job.
.
This is where i started..........☛ https://yourjobs85.blogspot.com/
The capriciousness of much of our enforcement is both why we have so many laws to begin with, and is also the inevitable path to tyranny.
There really are two tiers of law enforcement. I've gotten the easy treatment before because of family connections. And I've been treated like a peasant by the king's men of course. Cops can actually be friendly when their supervisor tells them that the person they're dealing with has family that's personal friends with their boss.
In her case she overstayed her green card or it expired or was revoked because we had her in custody, I'm guessing? The article doesn't make that part clear.
Not that the term 'green card' is all that useful anymore, either. Was she a permanent legal resident or here on an extended temporary residency visa?
Also, it's not exactly clear whether the 'passenger' who started shooting was in her car or the other one they encountered. But, I'm guessing the former. It makes more sense that you would arrest the driver of the car the shots came from, rather than the one that was shot at, But, police and prosecutors - you never know.
From the trial info, she was driving the van, and the victims were on the stoop of a home. She passed them, the turned around and drove back by, then stopped in front of the house. Her passenger in the van shot two members of a rival gang, killing one. Then they drove off. She stopped at an alley, and let her passengers run off.
It was her bad luck that a patrol car was nearby, and the officers witnessed the shooting, and followed the van.
Then, she denied that anyone had been in the van with her. She claimed that she had once been in the gang, but had left it, although evidence from her apartment contradicted that.
The article sort of implies that she was innocent, in the sense that she did nothing wrong. In reality, she participated in the crime, but did not actually pull the trigger. The getaway driver that did not actually fire the gun may not deserve the same punishment as the trigger man, but it is still a crime.
By now we've gotten used to the fact that Reason crime reporting ALWAYS omits incriminating details. No exceptions.
So once again we find that Reason reporters have their own political agendas, and that pertinent facts are regularly excluded to drive their narrative. How is it again that "Reason" is different than main stream leftist media propogandists?
"How is it again that "Reason" is different than main stream leftist media propogandists?"
I don't recall anyone making such a claim.
So, I guess good luck to her in some way, but the facts are really not good. If you had told me she was still in prison for murder, and laid out the case as you have done so in the article I would already have felt that it was reasonable.
And if she hadn't been arrested, but at the time of the arrest had had her green card invalidated and was returned to Mexico I also would have felt that reasonable.
I really do think I'm one of the more open-border folks who post in these comment sections, but those are some bad facts.
They always pick the most ridiculous examples.
They're the BLM of immigration.
I would have argued more about the length of the sentence probably being too much for the crime, but meeting up with your old gang members for a fun drive that ends in a drive-by seems to lay at least some moral culpability at your feet.
Life sentence? Eh, probably not. So, I'm not upset by the release either. This is just one of those cases where there's so much going on, that I feel I can easily argue each side of it.
Arguing both sides of an issue is good practice, especially when you don't agree with one of the sides.
Yeah, I phrased that weird. I meant more the issue sounds so narrow that it's within the bounds of me not caring too much which way it goes. You could cut the law either way for this woman, and I'd say "Fine, I may disagree or agree, but it's within the boundaries of possibility I'm fine with the law existing within."
She is an illegal immigrant. That is a fact not in dispute. She was running with gangs and was (at some level) a participant in a drive by shooting, and I didn't read anything in the article that suggests she went right to the police at her next opportunity and reported the crime. That (as far as I can tell) is a fact not in dispute. The disputed area of facts is how MUCH blame one can one lay at her feet, and as a result, what sentence would have been appropriate. According to the sentencing guidelines at the time, vs now, it seems that she got the incorrect sentence and that sentence has been overturned.
However, she still maintains the status of "illegal immigrant" (another fact not in dispute). So if our immigration law is what it is, you don't want committing crime to be a pathway to citizenship. For instance, would we have a different view of this case had she been picked up for burglary, spent six months in jail? Or perhaps assault with a deadly weapon and she spent two years in jail?
I can see the headline now: ________ spent two years in prison, they served their sentence fair and square, now we're trying to deport them!
What? She's a legal permanent resident. It says so right in the article. She's not an illegal immigrant.
Illegal in this case is a noun, not an adjective. Adjectives apply to nouns like people. Illegals aren't people. They're illegals.
You're right, I missed that at the end of the article. So allow me to amend my comment.
Despite being a legal permanent resident, she is not a US citizen, and, according to US Law, legal permanent resident can be deported for a whole host of even minor or non-violent offenses. So, the question to me becomes, is there anything the journalism is leaving out. Is this truly a case of "There everyone sat, minding their own business when... ALL OF A SUDDEN!"
Or was the murder conviction part-in-parcel of other criminal convictions that had or did occur because she was, you know, running with armed street gangs who like to shoot passers-by out of windows.
"According to the sentencing guidelines at the time, vs now, it seems that she got the incorrect sentence and that sentence has been overturned."
The sentence got overturned because they changed the law afterwards, and gave the new law retroactive application. Not on account of it being wrong at the time.
I don't believe her when she says she was no longer a member of the gang, but she just "happened" to be driving several gang members when they got into a shoot-out.
How many people quit gangs but then still go to hang out with the gang and let the gang use their car?
This. Unless she is saying that she was carjacked and forced at gunpoint to drive her "former" gang members around when they shot someone, I think she's lying about having quit the gang and I'm fine with holding her accountable under the original felony murder rule.
In fact, in her trial the court affirmatively found that she'd been lying about it, and clearly was still a gang member.
The reason style book apparently requires that you take all defense claims to be true, even if they were refuted in court.
if we'd stop recognizing a fake line in the sand ...
How did she get a green card at age 9? Did she have one at age 21?
If her parents are legal permanent residents, I think she would be one.
Ackshualy, I think the felony murder rule can do some good (though of course it can be abused like any rule - it should be carefully defined). But if A intentionally helps B commit a felony involving the risk of death, and the felony "goes wrong" and ends up with B committing murder (oops!), then I have no trouble treating A as a murderer too.
The key intent should be "am I helping commit a crime which could lead to someone being dead?" Eg, agreeing to be the getaway driver in an armed robbery and - oops! - it turns out the other robbers killed a store clerk. That's a foreseeable risk when you help someone commit an armed robbery.
But if in its wisdom California has chosen to expunge this conviction, I see no basis for the federal government second-guessing that decision - assuming that's what happened, though I wouldn't rely on Reason to get every relevant detail in the article.
Murderer or not; she still illegal- Hasta!
Why are laws requiring that people carry the proper papers sacred like laws against murder?
By the way, "Show me your papers" sounds better in the original German.
"show me your papers" is something that happens at borders, everywhere, all the time. It also happens when you get arrested.
It's also a product of progressivism around the time of WWI. Yet conservatives absolutely LOVE such laws.
sacred like laws against murder
*Glances at Chicago's 40% murder clearance rate and scratches chin.*
So, she was lawfully convicted for driving a murderer to the scene of the crime and is now lawfully being deported for being a convicted felon. I fail to see the problem.
The sun kisses the morning skies
the birds kiss the butterflies...
....class ...class ...class ...SHUT UP!!
Castaneda came to the U.S. on a green card in 1991 at the age of 9 and grew up in South Central Los Angeles, where she became friends with members of a local gang. On May 10, 2002, Castaneda was driving a group of gang-affiliated friends to a restaurant when they encountered members of a rival gang. One of the passengers began to fire shots at them, killing one person and injuring another. Court documents indicate that Castaneda had possessions and tattoos linking her to the Florencia 13 gang, though Castaneda testified that she had quit the gang several years prior to the shooting incident.
Holy Shit! To borrow from The Critical Drinker: LOL.
She wasn't in a gang.... she only had friends in a gang. Well, she also had tattoos and gang paraphernalia, but she wasn't in a gang. She quit the gang two years before the shooting. She was just hanging out with her friends in a gang, gang paraphernalia in her possession at the time of the shooting... but she wasn't in a gang. You can almost see the montage as Fat Tony relays the story to Chief Wiggum who forwards it on for Kent Brockman to read on the news.
"I wasn't helping the gang out, I was just driving a car in which several members of a gang that I'm definitely no longer a member of got into a shoot-out with a separate gang and I definitely had no idea they were going to do that when they got into my car brandishing multiple guns."
Get the fuck out of my country.
Got a raging "punishment boner" today, eh?
"Beware of all those in whom the urge to punish is strong." - Friedrich Nietzsche
“Mistrust all those in whom the desire to punish is imperative.” Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
"Let he who is without sin, throw the first stone." - Jesus
“How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while there is still a beam in your own eye? You hypocrite! First take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” - Jesus
Sounds like you have an immigrant boner. Why don't you explain why you're so hot to have her, and people like her, in this country?
https://www.cato.org/blog/14-most-common-arguments-against-immigration-why-theyre-wrong
The 14 Most Common Arguments against Immigration and Why They’re Wrong
Above is excellent pro-immigration link!!!! Also https://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/immigrants-assimilate-political-mainstream
Fruits and veggies rot in the fields because welfare-spoiled USA-Americans won't do the work, also! WHERE is our "Bracero" program? Too much coddling of American unions, is part of the problem, too! Yes, "D" party is more guilty on THAT one!
The fact that you watch the critical thinker confirms that I am, perennially in the good company of total misfits.
"This woman spent 19 years in jail for committing an obvious crime that involved a death, even though she didn't pull the trigger."
Write honest headlines please. I'm tired.
OK... "Brown-Skinned Un-American Guilty of Association, AND of Being On the Scene"! Will THAT work?
You know who else were sentenced to prison for a murder they didn't commit?
lol good one.
Yeah but "Should he have been kicked out of places he legally wasn't supposed to be?" is the real question.
Il Fugitivo?
The truth is the law still says he murdered someone. A pardon or some other proclamation does not change that simple truth.
The truth is that the law is an ass, and some evil assholes will stop at NOTHING in order to satisfy their punishment boners!
Beware of blowing on unauthorized cheap plastic flutes, and also of being a witch!
To find precise details on what NOT to do, to avoid the flute police, please see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/DONT_DO_THIS/ … This has been a pubic service, courtesy of the Church of SQRLS!
The law isn't an ass when it comes to immigration. Borders are sacred. Crossing them without permission is as serious as murder.
And it's articles like this that make me lose trust in this publication.
Even in your slanted telling with no counterpoints, she still sounds guilty. She was driving the car when her friends randomly started shooting out the window? She fled the scene of the crime and allowed them to escape? I truly cannot see why anyone would think she is not partially responsible for the killing. 20 years in prison is quite reasonable for participating in a drive by shooting, a type of murder well known for hitting innocent bystanders.
Once we account for the repeated and deliberate lies that you are well known for in these articles against the felony murder rule, I cannot agree whatsoever.
She is a citizen of another country. She was here, initially, with the permission of the federal government, on a temporary basis. In those circumstances, the individual should be on their best behavior as a guest in a foreign country. Being a member of a street gang is not best behavior. I have no issues with someone being sent back to their nation of citizenship, after proving they are not worthy of temporary guest status.
Deportation is prosecution! It is also not a punishment.
Don't get me wrong, I think charging her with felony murder was ridiculous and wrong and she deserves compensation for that. But if she's here illegally, that's a separate issue. Think of it this way - no matter how much someone has been wronged, they still don't get to stay in your house without permission. At some point, they have to go home, and that's not considered a "punishment".
I meant deportation is NOT a prosecution. Sheesh, Reason, when will you allow us to edit or at least delete our own comments? If I accidentally hit the submit button, there's nothing I can do.
Oh, lord.
See, "The shooter was never charged" is just another way of saying that Ms. Sandra Castaneda, after personally serving as the shooter's getaway driver, refused to identify the shooter.
So, if the felony murder rule had not applied at the time, the State of California would instead have tried and convicted her as an accessory-after-the-fact to a murder on the exact same facts. Her prison sentence would have been shorter, but after completing it her felon ass would have been deported, because that's what we do with felons.
See, "The shooter was never charged" is just another way of saying that Ms. Sandra Castaneda, after personally serving as the shooter's getaway driver, refused to identify the shooter.
Good point. Especially after the whole "She wasn't in a gang, all of her friends were in the gang." retardation, I should've deciphered this. I just assumed the dude got away. Schadenfreudiest part is, there is conceptually a chance that he was apprehended and somehow faced no charges but I don't believe that because I'm pretty sure Fiona's incapable of being that honest.
This stuck out to me. How is the shooter at large if she was driving her friends and not in the gang when they decided to open fire. How could she not ID her friends the gangbangers?
Difficult to get worked-up about this case. Kick her gang-banging ass out of the country and make room for an immigrant who will help make the country a better place.
+1
Reasons open borders stance in this case is false. It's a pro-criminal stance. Either they worked hard to find this case to make this stance, can't find any non-criminal immigrants to write a story on, or don't really care if their open borders stance leads to more people "helping their friends" perpetrate drive by shootings.
mad.casual:
I agree. If these sorts of stories are the best they can find to support their open borders argument, then I guess they don't have a very good case.
Man, I just hate it when I’m driving around “a group of gang-affiliated friends” that I’ve known since I was nine and they just randomly see someone they have no choice but to murder from the window of my car.
Right?!? It's so frustrating that I-through no choice of my own- have to help them elude the cops and then refuse to cooperate with locating them.
I am the REAL victim of those drive-bys.
reportedly she even turned around and drove back to the location of the rival gang after they spotted them, and stopped the van so her gang member friends could fire at their rivals.
She needs to be deported, or she should still be in jail - she's an accomplice, even as this article tries to make her out to be innocent!
"Reason" has their own agendas as well!
Or just maybe her passengers told her "We need to talk to our friends on the porch back there, please turn around", and she had no idea they were actually enemies until they started shooting. I've driven friends to see someone they knew and I didn't, and you probably have too. So the facts you stated aren't proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
OTOH, I've never been out driving with known gang members in my car, and if my friends got out of the car, drew guns, and started killing people,
(1) I'd burn rubber getting out of there, leaving the shooters behind.
(2) I'd call the cops as soon as possible after getting a safe distance away.
(3) I'd tell the cops the shooters' names, addresses, and anything else I could think of to help catch them.
(4) I'd testify against the shooters in court.
On the 3rd hand, one or two of the neighborhoods I grew up in were iffy , but I've never had to join a gang to survive, I'm white, all my ancestors born since the 1850's were natural born citizens, and I'm the sort of stubborn jackass that would take death threats as an even better reason to testify. She might have considerably worse expectations of cops than me, and I can see her wanting to avoid being linked to this at all.
So once again we find that Reason reporters have their own political agendas, and that pertinent facts are regularly excluded to drive their narrative. How is it again that "Reason" is different than main stream leftist media propogandists?
She has to go back.