People v. Walters CA4/1

Filed 1/21/22 P. v. Walters CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D079111

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD260844)

VINCENT LEGREND WALTERS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Frederic L. Link, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina, Robin Urbanski, and Donald W. Ostertag, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2015, Vincent Walters entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded guilty to first degree murder (Pen. Code, 1 § 187, subd. (a)) and two

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

counts of kidnapping for ransom (§ 209, subd. (a)). Walters was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 32 years to life in prison. In 2021, Walters filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. The trial court summarily denied the petition without appointment of counsel or issuing an order to show cause and conducting an evidentiary hearing. The court concluded, based on the change of plea transcript, that Walters was the actual killer or at least acted with malice. Walters filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel filed a Wende brief. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) This court reviewed the case and discovered the trial court had denied the resentencing petition without first appointing counsel and receiving briefs. This appeared to be contrary to the Supreme Court decision in People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 (Lewis). Based on that discovery, this court declined to treat the case as a Wende appeal. We directed the parties to file briefs on the question of whether the trial court’s error was prejudicial. Having now reviewed the briefs and the record, we conclude the error in failing to appoint counsel and receive briefing was not harmless. We will reverse the order denying the petition and remand with directions to issue an order to show cause (OSC) and to conduct an evidentiary hearing as required