People v. Walker CA2/2

Filed 2/10/21 P. v. Walker CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B306625

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA071076) v.

KAMARON LEMONT WALKER,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT: Appellant and petitioner Kamaron Lemont Walker (defendant) appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95.1 His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, raising no issues. On October 30, 2020, we notified defendant of his counsel’s brief and gave him leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter stating any grounds or

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

argument he might wish to have considered. Because defendant's appeal is from an order denying post-conviction relief, he is not entitled to our independent review of the record. (See People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1038-1039, review granted Oct. 14, 2020, S264278; People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, 503.) However, as defendant has filed a supplemental brief, he is entitled to our evaluation of the arguments presented in that brief. (See People v. Cole, supra, at p. 1040.) We affirm the order. Defendant was charged with a codefendant of murder in the shooting death of Dion Holloway, in violation of section 187, subdivision (a).2 In 2009, defendant was convicted of first degree murder, and the allegation that defendant had personally and intentionally discharged a firearm which proximately caused the death of the victim, within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (d), was found true. The jury further found that defendant committed the crime for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang, with the specific intent to promote, further and assist in criminal conduct by gang members, within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C). Defendant was sentenced as a second strike offender pursuant to sections 1170.12 and 667,