People v. Walton CA5

Filed 3/19/25 P. v. Walton CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F087003 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR-23-000530) v.

TYLER JAMES WALTON, Stanislaus County

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Robert B. Westbrook and Linda McFadden, Judges. Jared G. Coleman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher J. Rench, and Kelly E. LeBel, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

 Judge Westbrook presided over the preliminary hearing; Judge McFadden presided over the trial and sentencing hearing.

INTRODUCTION In 2023, a jury convicted appellant Tyler James Walton of two misdemeanors: (1) simple assault (Pen. Code, § 240;1 count 1) and vehicular hit and run (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a); count 2).2 Appellant was placed on informal probation for 12 months, and he was ordered to serve 45 days in jail. Appellant contends that this prosecution was untimely, and his two misdemeanor convictions must be reversed due to a violation of the statute of limitations. We reject appellant’s claim and affirm. BACKGROUND Appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his two misdemeanor convictions. In general, the People established the following at trial. On September 5, 2021, appellant merged onto a highway and another motorist, Damian Mulgado, believed appellant cut him off. Appellant and Mulgado exited the highway. When both vehicles were stopped at an intersection, a passenger in Mulgado’s vehicle exited that car, and he threw a wrench at one of the windows of appellant’s truck. Both vehicles drove away. A short time later, appellant drove his truck into the back of Mulgado’s vehicle, causing damage. Mulgado pulled over, but appellant drove away from the accident scene. A police officer saw the accident occur, and the officer believed appellant was trying to flee. The officer pursued appellant, who was detained. DISCUSSION I. A Chronology of this Prosecution. Appellant committed these crimes on September 5, 2021. Three days later, a criminal complaint was filed against him that alleged two counts of felony assault with a 1 All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted. 2 The jury acquitted appellant of a third charge, misdemeanor resisting, delaying or obstructing a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1); count 3).