gno.law

People v. Walcott CA2/4

California Court of Appeal · B263159 · 2016-02-22 · Unpublished

Proceeding
appeal from an order
Trial court
Superior Court of Los Angeles County · No. SA026984
Trial judge
Richard A. Stone
Outcome
affirmed — Affirmed.
Area
criminal
Panel
Norman L. Epstein (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

Filed 2/22/16 P. v. Walcott CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B263159

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA026984) v. DARRYL A. WALCOTT, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Richard A. Stone, Judge. Affirmed. James Koester, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, and Darryl A. Walcott, in pro.per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________________ Darryl Walcott appeals from the denial of his petition to recall his sentence under Proposition 47 (Pen. Code, § 1170.18), which reduced certain felonies to misdemeanors. His appointed counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and appellant filed a supplemental brief. Appellant is a third striker, serving 44 years to life in prison for a second-degree robbery committed with the use of a firearm. His conviction was affirmed in People v. Walcott (June 16, 1999, B121073 [nonpub. opn.]). In 2014, appellant filed petitions to recall his sentence under Proposition 36 (§ 1170.126) and Proposition 47 (§ 1170.18), both of which were denied. In affirming the denial of his petition under Proposition 36, we explained that appellant improperly attempted to reargue issues about his competency to stand trial, which had been raised and denied repeatedly in habeas corpus petitions. (See People v. Walcott (Aug. 17, 2015, B261304 [nonpub. opn.]). The same holds true here: appellant’s conviction under section 211 falls outside the scope of Proposition 47, and the competency issue he raises in his supplemental brief is not properly before us. We have reviewed the record under People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106. No arguable issues for appeal exist.

DISPOSITION The order is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS EPSTEIN, P. J. We concur:

WILLHITE, J. MANELLA, J.

Cites, in this corpus