People v. Welters CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D081917 · 2023-10-26 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. CR131419
Trial judge: Herbert J. Exarhos
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Buchanan, Michele M. Castillo

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:26Z · confidence high

The trial court denied Welters' petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, finding he was the actual killer and sole perpetrator of the murders. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial after an independent review of the record under the Wende procedure.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 “the court concluded Welters was the actual killer of both victims and that he was the sole perpetrator of the murders. Accordingly, the court found Welters was not eligible for resentencing under section 1172.6 and denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause or conducting an evidentiary hearing.”	de novo	correct	agree with court The appellate court affirmed the denial because the record conclusively demonstrated that Welters was the actual killer and sole perpetrator, which renders him ineligible for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court noted that Welters did not deny being the actual killer and that his other arguments (youth, self-defense) were either irrelevant to this specific petition or resolved by prior final judgment.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Establishes the procedure for appointed appellate counsel to file a brief indicating no meritorious issues have been identified, requesting the court to independently review the record.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires the court of appeal to conduct an independent review of the record when appointed counsel cannot identify any potentially meritorious issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the standard for appointed counsel to withdraw from an appeal by filing a brief identifying any potentially meritorious issues; the court noted counsel did not attempt to comply with this specific standard but the court proceeded with independent review.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the Wende/Delgadillo procedure to independently review the record and affirms the trial court's denial based on the undisputed fact that the defendant was the actual killer and sole perpetrator, which is a statutory bar to relief under section 1172.6. The court appropriately dismisses the defendant's youth argument as irrelevant to the specific legal standard for this petition.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

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

The trial court denied Christopher Welters's Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage without issuing an order to show cause, concluding from the record that he was the actual killer and sole perpetrator of two robbery murders for which a jury had convicted him in the early 1990s. On appeal, counsel filed a no-issues brief under People v. Delgadillo, the Court of Appeal exercised its discretion to independently review the record, rejected Welters's supplemental arguments about imperfect self-defense and his youth as outside the scope of a section 1172.6 appeal, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage, without an order to show cause or evidentiary hearing, on the ground that Welters was the actual killer and sole perpetrator “After reviewing the material, the court concluded Welters was the actual killer of both victims and that he was the sole perpetrator of the murders.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Denial at the prima facie stage is reviewed de novo, and under People v. Lewis the trial court may rely on the record of conviction but may not weigh evidence or make credibility findings. The opinion does not state the standard or cite Lewis, and does not identify what in the record of conviction (e.g., jury instructions, absence of felony-murder or natural-and-probable-consequences theories) conclusively shows actual-killer liability; the trial court's phrase 'after reviewing the material' could suggest factfinding. However, the opinion states Welters does not deny being the actual killer, and his direct appeal sought an imperfect self-defense instruction, which presupposes he personally killed. A sole perpetrator and actual killer is ineligible for relief as a matter of law, so the result is correct even though the reasoning is thin.
Rejection of Welters's supplemental argument that he should receive relief because he was 18 at the time of the killings “Whatever the merits of such assertion may be, the issue is not relevant to our analysis of the current appeal dealing with the denial of his petition for resentencing under section 1172.6.”	de novo	correct	agree with court Section 1172.6 provides a narrow vehicle limited to convictions resting on felony murder, natural and probable consequences, or other imputed-malice theories. Youth-based sentencing claims (e.g., under Franklin or section 3051) are not cognizable in a section 1172.6 proceeding, so the court correctly declined to address the merits in this appeal.
Rejection of Welters's renewed imperfect self-defense instructional claim as barred by the final 1994 judgment “On his original appeal, he sought reversal for the court’s failure to instruct on imperfect self-defense. That issue was resolved by final judgment in 1994.”	de novo	correct	agree with court An appeal from the denial of a section 1172.6 petition does not reopen issues decided on direct appeal; the instructional claim was resolved in the 1994 affirmance and cannot be relitigated here. The court's conclusion follows from the limited scope of the resentencing statute and the finality of the judgment.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — When appointed counsel finds no arguable issues on appeal from denial of a section 1172.6 petition, the Court of Appeal is not required to conduct Wende review but must notify the defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief, must evaluate any arguments raised, and may in its discretion independently review the record.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Procedure for independent appellate review of the record when appointed counsel on a first appeal of right identifies no arguable issues.
missed: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — At the prima facie stage of a section 1172.6 petition the trial court may consider the record of conviction, including a prior appellate opinion, but must take the petition's allegations as true and may not engage in factfinding, weighing of evidence, or credibility determinations; denial is proper only when the record of conviction establishes ineligibility as a matter of law.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result is defensible because Welters concedes he was the actual killer and sole perpetrator, which makes him ineligible for section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law, and the court properly treated his youth and instructional arguments as outside the scope of the appeal. The opinion, however, never states the standard of review, does not cite People v. Lewis or explain what in the record of conviction (as opposed to factfinding) established actual-killer status, and relies on the defendant's non-denial rather than an articulated legal basis for the prima facie denial.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 10/26/23 P. v. Welters 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, D081917

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. CR131419)

CHRISTOPHER AARON WELTERS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Herbert J. Exarhos, Judge. Affirmed. Christopher Aaron Welters, in pro. per.; and Joanna McKim, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. A jury convicted Christopher Aaron Welters of two counts of first degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)). The jury found Welters personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) and found true the special circumstance that the murder was committed during a robbery (§ 190.2, 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. subd. (a)(17)). The jury also found true the multiple murder special circumstance (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)). The jury also convicted Welters of first degree robbery with the personal use of a firearm (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (a) and 12022.5, subd. (a)). Welters was sentenced to two consecutive terms of life in prison without possibility of parole. Welters appealed his convictions, and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Welters (Apr. 13, 1994, D018152).) In 2022, Welters filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 (now renumbered section 1172.6) The court appointed counsel, received briefing and held a hearing. After reviewing the material, the court concluded Welters was the actual killer of both victims and that he was the sole perpetrator of the murders. Accordingly, the court found Welters was not eligible for resentencing under section 1172.6 and denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause or conducting an evidentiary hearing. Welters filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record consistent with the procedure outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We notified Welters of his right to file his own brief on appeal. Welters has responded with a supplemental brief. We will discuss that submission below. STATEMENT OF FACTS The facts of the offenses were fully discussed in our original opinion. We will not repeat the factual summary here.

2 DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to the procedure stated in Delgadillo. Counsel asks the court to exercise our discretion and independently review the record for error. We will exercise that discretion in this appeal. Counsel has not attempted to comply with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and has not identified any of the possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal. However, the record demonstrates conclusively that Welters is the actual killer and the sole perpetrator of these murders. Welters does not deny he is the actual killer. On his original appeal, he sought reversal for the court’s failure to instruct on imperfect self-defense. That issue was resolved by final judgment in 1994. Welters also observes he was only 18 years old at the time of the killings and should get some relief due to his youth at the time. Whatever the merits of such assertion may be, the issue is not relevant to our analysis of the current appeal dealing with the denial of his petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. In short, Welters has not identified any potentially meritorious issues with regard to the denial of this specific petition for resentencing. Our independent review of the record on appeal has not identified any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Welters on this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION The order denying appellant’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

BUCHANAN, J.

CASTILLO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12