People v. Walker CA2/2

Filed 7/21/23 P. v. Walker CA2/2 (Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court) NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B310712

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. BA222258)

VANESSA WALKER, OPINION ON REMAND

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT: Pursuant to the April 12, 2023, order of the California Supreme Court, we vacate our November 9, 2021, decision in this matter. Upon reconsideration in light of People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 232–233 & fn. 6 (Delgadillo), we exercise our discretion to conduct an independent review of the record. Based on that independent review, we affirm the trial court’s

order denying the Penal Code section 1172.61 (former § 1170.95)2 petition filed by defendant and appellant Vanessa Walker. BACKGROUND In 2003, defendant and her husband were charged with first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and conspiracy to commit first degree murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 182, subd. (a)). (People v. Walker (Jan. 14, 2005, B168784) [nonpub. opn.], at p. 2 (Walker I).) Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of the lesser included offense of second degree murder. (§ 187, subd. (a); Walker I, supra, B168784, at p. 2.) She also admitted to a prior conviction for voluntary manslaughter. (§ 192.) The trial court sentenced her to 35 years to life in state prison. (Walker I, supra, B168784, at p. 2.) On direct appeal, we affirmed the judgment as to defendant. (Id. at pp. 3, 32.) On March 6, 2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 and was appointed counsel. The People filed an opposition to the petition, arguing that defendant was ineligible for resentencing relief because she had not been convicted under a theory of vicarious liability, such as felony murder or the natural and probable consequences doctrine. The People attached multiple exhibits, including the record of defendant’s 2003 trial and our opinion in her direct appeal. Defendant’s counsel filed a reply, contending that because defendant had satisfied the requisite elements establishing a prima facie showing for relief under section 1172.6, the trial court