People v. Walsh CA6

Filed 8/11/22 P. v. Walsh CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H049553 (Santa Cruz County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 19CR05767)

v.

RICHARD EDMUND WALSH,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Richard Edmund Walsh pleaded no contest to first degree residential burglary and grand theft of personal property and was sentenced to a term of 12 years in prison. His appointed counsel filed a brief that states the case and the facts but raises no arguable issues, citing People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We notified Walsh of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf, and he has not done so. After conducting an independent review of the record, we requested the parties file supplemental briefs addressing whether Walsh is entitled to resentencing due to recent amendments made to Penal Code section 1170 by Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.).1 Both parties have filed supplemental briefs agreeing that remand for resentencing is necessary. We reverse the judgment and remand the matter for resentencing.

1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.

I. BACKGROUND On September 17, 2019, Walsh entered the victim’s home when nobody was present and took an iPhone, laptop, and several watches.2 On December 13, 2019, the prosecution charged Walsh with first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459)3 and grand theft of personal property (§ 487, subd. (a)).4 The information alleged that the burglary was a serious and violent felony within the meaning of sections 1192.7, subdivision (c) and 667.5, subdivision (c). The information further alleged that Walsh had served nine prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and had four prior strike convictions (§ 667, subd. (b)-(i)).5 At the plea hearing on July 7, 2021, the trial court noted that the prosecutor had made Walsh an offer of 12 years in prison in exchange for pleas as to both counts and the admission of the prior strikes, with the understanding that Walsh would bring a Romero motion.6 The parties also agreed that the information should be amended to reflect that the burglary was a serious felony only and not a violent felony. The trial court indicated a sentence of 12 years, stating that “[t]here’s an opening, a possibility for less.” Walsh thereafter pleaded guilty to both counts and admitted the four prior strike convictions.