People v. Walker CA4/3

Filed 07/24/23 P. v. Walker CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G062101

v. (Super. Ct. No. 12NF3291)

RODNEY DWYANE WALKER, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Julian W. Bailey, Judge. Affirmed. Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Defendant Rodney Dwyane Walker appeals from the trial court’s summary denial of his petition for resentencing (Petition) under Penal Code section 1170.18.1 Based on events that took place in 2012, a complaint charged defendant with second degree robbery (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)), with an enhancement for being armed with a firearm at the time (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)), along with various other felonies and misdemeanors. It also alleged he had suffered more than two prior serious and violent strike convictions within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12), and two prior serious felony convictions (§§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 1192.7, subd. (c)). A jury convicted defendant of second degree robbery, among other crimes, and found that during the commission of the robbery offense, defendant was armed with a firearm. Defendant admitted 12 prior strike convictions and the two prior serious felony convictions. The trial court struck the firearm enhancement for sentencing purposes only and sentenced defendant to a total prison term of 35 years to life. This court affirmed the judgment in a nonpublished opinion.2 (People v. Walker (June 20, 2016, G052496) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2021, defendant filed the Petition seeking resentencing. The trial court summarily denied the Petition based on the conclusion defendant was not eligible for relief because robbery is not a crime to which section 1170.18 applies. Defendant timely appealed. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed a brief summarizing the proceedings and facts of the case and advised this court he found no arguable issues to assert on defendant’s behalf. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Thereafter, this court notified defendant he