People v. Walters CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D079111 · 2022-01-21 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD260844
Trial judge: Frederic L. Link
Outcome: reversed — Reversed and remanded with directions.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith L. Haller, O'Rourke

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:55Z · confidence high

The trial court summarily denied Walters's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 without appointing counsel or issuing an order to show cause, relying solely on the change of plea transcript. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded with directions to appoint counsel and conduct an evidentiary hearing, finding the failure to appoint counsel was not harmless error.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Summary denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 without appointment of counsel or issuance of an order to show cause. “The trial court summarily denied the petition without appointment of counsel or issuing an order to show cause and conducting an evidentiary hearing.”	unclear	error (procedure)	agree with court The appellate court found the trial court's failure to appoint counsel and receive briefing was contrary to People v. Lewis and constituted non-harmless error under People v. Watson because the record was ambiguous regarding Walters's specific role as an aider and abettor versus the actual killer.

Authorities

relied: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — Where a petitioner files a facially proper petition under section 1170.95, the court must appoint counsel; failure to do so is evaluated for prejudice under the Watson standard.
relied: People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 — Standard for evaluating harmless error in state law cases: whether it is reasonably probable that a different result would have occurred in the absence of the error.
relied: People v. Drayton (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 965 — After appointment of counsel, a trial court may summarily deny a petition only if readily available facts establish ineligibility as a matter of law, and may not engage in factfinding or draw evidentiary inferences.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Procedural framework for appointed appellate counsel to review the record for error when a defendant files a Wende brief.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the procedural mandates of People v. Lewis, which requires appointment of counsel for facially proper petitions. It properly applies the Watson harmless error standard to determine that the ambiguity in the plea transcript regarding the defendant's specific role (actual killer vs. aider/abettor) meant competent counsel could have argued for a different result, thus rendering the error non-harmless.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence low

The San Diego Superior Court summarily denied Vincent Walters's Penal Code section 1170.95 resentencing petition without appointing counsel or receiving briefing, concluding from the change-of-plea transcript that he was the actual killer or at least acted with malice. The Court of Appeal, after declining to treat the case as a Wende appeal, held the failure to appoint counsel violated People v. Lewis and was not harmless under Watson because the plea transcript was ambiguous as to whether Walters was the actual killer or an aider and abettor, and it reversed and remanded with directions to issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Summary denial of the section 1170.95 petition without appointing counsel or receiving briefing after a facially sufficient petition was filed “Where a trial court erroneously fails to appoint counsel, the error is one of state law; thus, we apply the standard for evaluating harmless error under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.”	unclear	error (procedure)	agree with court Lewis squarely holds that a trial court must appoint counsel upon the filing of a facially sufficient petition and that the failure is state-law error reviewed for prejudice under Watson. The opinion correctly identifies the error and the prejudice standard; it does not expressly articulate a standard of review beyond applying Watson, but the Lewis framework is applied faithfully.
Finding at the prima facie stage, based on the change-of-plea transcript, that Walters was the actual killer or acted with malice and therefore ineligible for relief “Thus, the record available to the trial court on its initial review was ambiguous as to the basis of Walters’s liability as an apparent aider and abettor, as opposed to being the actual killer.”	de novo	error (law misapplied)	agree with court Under Lewis and Drayton, a court at the prima facie stage may deny only where the record of conviction establishes ineligibility as a matter of law and may not engage in factfinding or draw evidentiary inferences. The plea colloquy, in which defense counsel immediately clarified the plea rested on aiding and abetting and no facts of Walters's role were developed, does not conclusively establish he was the actual killer; the trial court's conclusion therefore required an inference the statute does not permit at that stage. The Court of Appeal's prejudice conclusion follows, though it did not separately address the trial court's alternative finding that Walters 'at least acted with malice.'

Authorities

relied: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — A trial court must appoint counsel upon the filing of a facially sufficient section 1170.95 petition; at the prima facie stage the court may deny only if the record of conviction establishes ineligibility as a matter of law and may not engage in factfinding; failure to appoint counsel is state-law error reviewed for prejudice under Watson.
relied: People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 — State-law error is harmless unless it is reasonably probable the defendant would have obtained a more favorable result absent the error.
relied: People v. Drayton (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 965 — At the prima facie stage of a section 1170.95 petition the court takes the petitioner's allegations as true and may not reject them based on factfinding or weighing of evidence unless the record of conviction refutes them as a matter of law.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appointed appellate counsel may file a brief raising no issues and the appellate court independently reviews the record for arguable issues.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly applies Lewis to find error in the failure to appoint counsel and correctly applies Watson to find prejudice given the ambiguous plea colloquy, which cannot establish actual-killer status as a matter of law without impermissible inference. It does not, however, address the trial court's alternative 'acted with malice' rationale or explain why the remedy is an immediate order to show cause and evidentiary hearing rather than remand for appointment of counsel and a proper prima facie determination, the remedy Lewis contemplates.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition record incomplete

Opinion

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 by section 1170.95.2 DISCUSSION The transcript of the change of plea contains statements by Walters which could indicate he was the actual killer. Indeed, at one point he said he did kill the victim. However, as the transcript demonstrates, defense counsel 2 This appeal arises from a conviction by plea. Thus, there is no statement of facts in the record. 2 interrupted and pointed out Walters was “aiding and abetting.” The relevant portions of the transcript are as follows: “The Court: Did you murder [K.R.]?

“The defendant: Yes, I did.

“[¶] . . . [¶]

“Mr. Garcia [Defense counsel]: It’s aiding and abetting.

“The Court: By what he said is enough.

“Mr. Garcia: I want to make sure it is clear.”

A. Legal Principles In Lewis, the court clarified a number of procedural issues regarding trial court review of resentencing petitions under section 1170.95. Relevant here, the court held that where the petitioner files a facially proper petition, the court must appoint counsel. (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 970.) The court identified the standard for determining prejudice when a trial court fails to appoint counsel. Where a trial court erroneously fails to appoint counsel, the error is one of state law; thus, we apply the standard for evaluating harmless error under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836. (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 973.) Since the error is the failure to provide counsel, we must determine what counsel could have done to potentially obtain a different result. Based on the record, we must attempt to discern what impact the deprivation of counsel had on this case to determine whether it is reasonably probable that a different result would have occurred in the absence of the error. B. Analysis As we have noted, there is no evidentiary record to support the trial court’s decision. The ruling appears to be based on the trial court’s reading of 3 the transcript of the change of plea. Based on that transcript the court concluded Walters was the actual killer. Certainly, there is language in the transcript that, taken in isolation, would support such conclusion. However, it is important to note the incriminating statement was followed immediately by defense counsel’s clarification that Walters was an aider and abettor. Since the admissions thus far would give a factual basis for the guilty plea, neither the court or counsel explored exactly what Walters did as an aider and abettor to make him legally responsible for the murder of the victim. Thus, the record available to the trial court on its initial review was ambiguous as to the basis of Walters’s liability as an apparent aider and abettor, as opposed to being the actual killer. Walters and others were charged with conspiracy, kidnapping for ransom, and murder. There is no specific factual explanation of Walters’s role in the crime. The court in Lewis held that, after appointment of counsel, the trial court could summarily deny a petition if readily available facts in the record establish the petitioner to be ineligible for relief as a matter of law. The court may not, however, engage in factfinding or draw evidentiary inferences. (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 970-973; People v. Drayton (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 965, 979-980.) Competent counsel could have pointed out the ambiguity of the record of conviction and the lack of any clear factual basis for Walters’s liability if he truly was an aider and abettor. We cannot find the trial court’s error to be harmless. We must reverse the order and remand with directions. DISPOSITION The order denying Walters’s petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 is reversed. The matter is remanded to the superior court 4 with directions to issue an order to show cause and to conduct an evidentiary hearing as required by section 1170.95.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

HALLER, J.

O'ROURKE, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Lewis S260598 · 2021-07-26
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12
People v. Watson Crim. 5813 · 1956-07-03