People v. Wooten CA2/5

California Court of Appeal Dec 31, 2025 No. B341819Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, holding that the trial court properly acted as an independent fact finder in determining the defendant was the actual killer and that there is no constitutional right to counsel, nor a basis for a Marsden motion, in an appeal from the denial of a post-conviction resentencing petition.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in its fact-finding role during the section 1172.6 evidentiary hearing.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding that the defendant was the actual killer.
Whether the defendant is entitled to substitute counsel under People v. Marsden in an appeal from the denial of a section 1172.6 petition.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial judge “must review all the relevant evidence, evaluate and resolve contradictions, and make determinations as to credibility, all under the reasonable doubt standard.””

“An appeal from the denial of a petition for resentencing is not a first appeal of right, and accordingly, there is no constitutional right to counsel on such an appeal.”

Filed 12/31/25 P. v. Wooten CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B341819

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA065825) v.

JAMES DOUGLAS WOOTEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

James Douglas Wooten (defendant) appeals from an order of the trial court denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1172.6 (formerly section 1170.95). Defendant’s attorney filed a brief raising no issues and asked this court to independently review the record. Defendant submitted a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Under the standard articulated in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

(Delgadillo), we decline counsel’s invitation to undertake an independent review of the record. Instead, we evaluate the arguments defendant raises in his letter brief. (Id. at pp. 231- 232.) Finding none of his arguments meritorious, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Facts2 A. The underlying crime In 1988, Dwayne Walker was shot and killed at a gas station, and the shooter used a .38 caliber bullet. Three witnesses saw the gunman rifle through Walker’s pockets and search his car. The gunman then carjacked a woman at a nearby church and drove off. Despite witness descriptions and fingerprints found in Walker’s car, the police were unable to identify the killer. In 2002, cold case investigators resubmitted the fingerprints to the California identification databank, and defendant was identified as a possible match. The witnesses and the carjacking victim identified defendant’s photograph with differing degrees of certainty. When test-fired in 2002, the .38 caliber revolver that defendant used in a 1996 robbery could neither be conclusively identified nor excluded as the firearm that killed Walker, as the gun’s barrel had been damaged. B. Conviction and appeal In January 2003, the People charged defendant with a single count of murder (§ 187). The People also alleged the

People v. Wooten CA2/5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B341819

JAMES DOUGLAS WOOTEN,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief