People v. Walton CA3

Filed 6/8/21 P. v. Walton CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C090876

v. (Super. Ct. No. 11F02805)

MICHAEL SIMLEE WALTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Michael Simlee Walton asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment. I In April 2011, defendant fired multiple shots into a crowd of people after an altercation at a house party. In August 2012, a jury found defendant guilty of the murder of one victim, the attempted murder of a second victim, assault with a gun on three other victims, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and receiving stolen property (the gun).

1

Multiple gun enhancements were also found true. The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for a determinate term of 26 years four months and a consecutive minimum indeterminate life term of 65 years. This court affirmed defendant’s convictions in People v. Walton (Sept. 10, 2018, C072267) [nonpub. opn.] (Walton I), but vacated defendant’s sentence and remanded the matter to allow the trial court to exercise newly granted discretion to strike one or more of the firearm enhancements based on statutory amendments that took effect while defendant’s appeal was pending.1 On remand, the People opposed striking any of the firearm enhancements, arguing the enhancements were warranted given defendant’s long criminal history, the extremely violent nature of the offenses with five shooting victims, and defendant’s callous conduct that showed an extreme indifference to human life. The prosecutor attached the original probation report, letters from the homicide victim’s family, and this court’s opinion in Walton I. Defense counsel countered that the trial court should either strike or reduce the firearm enhancements because the evidence at trial showed defendant had fired the gun to defend himself after he had been attacked at the party. Defendant read a statement to the trial court indicating that although he had been defending himself at the party, he nevertheless took responsibility for the choice to carry a gun. He informed the trial court that while in prison, he worked with an outreach program and had obtained certificates for anger management, substance abuse treatment, cognitive awareness, and reentry, among other things. He asked the trial court to strike the enhancements. After considering the parties’ arguments, the trial court declined to strike the firearm enhancements in the interest of justice. The trial court cited defendant’s lengthy