People v. Walker CA2/2

California Court of Appeal Mar 25, 2021 No. B306499Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the summary denial of a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 because the defendant's jury was not instructed on the theories of liability invalidated by the statute, as the defendant was prosecuted as the actual killer.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in summarily denying a section 1170.95 petition by relying on the record of conviction to determine the defendant was ineligible for relief as a matter of law.
Whether the use of the phrase 'natural consequences' in an implied malice instruction constitutes an instruction on the natural and probable consequences doctrine for purposes of section 1170.95.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Because his jury was not instructed on either of the theories of liability invalidated by section 1170.95, we affirm the summary denial of his petition for relief.”

“The sole theory of liability presented to the jury in defendant’s case was the theory that he was the actual killer”

Filed 3/25/21 P. v. Walker CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B306499

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA010664) v.

DARRYL WALKER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Steven D. Blades, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard D. Miggins, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Charles S. Lee and Stephanie C. Santoro, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ******

Darryl Walker (defendant) appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95.1 Because his jury was not instructed on either of the theories of liability invalidated by section 1170.95, we affirm the summary denial of his petition for relief. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Facts2 A. The underlying crime In May 1991, defendant picked up Quintin Holmes (Holmes) at his aunt’s house. Three days later, Holmes’s body was found. Holmes had died from strangulation, four stab wounds and 32 instances of blunt force trauma from what looked to be a hammer. A few weeks earlier, defendant had borrowed a hammer from his girlfriend’s mother. Holmes’s blood was also found in the home where defendant rented a room. After the incident, defendant told someone he “had to kill a guy once.” B. Prosecution, conviction and appeal In the operative pleading, the People charged defendant with murder (§ 187, subd. (a)), and further alleged that he personally used two dangerous or deadly weapons—namely, a knife and a hammer (§ 12022, subd. (b)). A jury found defendant guilty of second degree murder, but found the weapon allegations not true. The trial court sentenced defendant to prison for 18 years

People v. Walker CA2/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B306499

DARRYL WALKER,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief