People v. Price CA4/2 ( 2024 )

Filed 2/21/24 P. v. Price CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E082274
v. (Super.Ct.No. BLF002735)
WALTER DEWEY PRICE, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Thoms E. Kelly, Judge.
(Retired judge of the Santa Cruz Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to
art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Appeal dismissed.
Alex Coolman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Walter Dewey Price appeals from an order of the
Riverside County Superior Court summarily denying his Penal Code section 1172.61
motion for resentencing on his murder conviction. We will dismiss.
BACKGROUND2
While defendant was serving time in prison for voluntary manslaughter of Yvonne
Gilmore, who died by strangulation, a jury convicted him of first degree murder of his
cellmate, Jamel Banks, who also died from strangulation. The trial court sentenced
defendant to a term of 55 years to life, to run consecutive to the sentence he was then
serving. Defendant appealed his conviction to this court and we affirmed the judgment.
(Price I., supra, E047834.)
In August 2023, defendant filed a section 1172.6 petition for resentencing on the
first degree murder conviction. The trial court set a status conference hearing and
appointed counsel. At the hearing, the People represented that defendant’s counsel had
been provided a copy of the jury instructions. They moved to dismiss the petition on the
grounds that defendant was convicted of strangulation murder and that the jury was not
instructed on the theories of natural and probable consequences, aiding and abetting,
felony murder, or any other theory by which malice could possibly be imputed to
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2 Some facts recited in this section are taken from this court’s opinion issued in
defendant’s prior appeal, People v. Price (Oct. 13, 2010, E047834) [nonpub. opn.]
(Price I.). We have taken judicial notice of that opinion on the court’s own motion.
2
defendant. Defendant’s counsel submitted, noting that it appeared the case involved a
solo killing of a cellmate.
The trial court denied the petition. Defendant timely noticed this appeal and we
appointed counsel to represent him.
We granted defendant’s motion to augment the record with the instructions given
to the jury.
DISCUSSION
Defendant’s counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Delgadillo
(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 that does not raise any issues. The brief includes a request for this
court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for the reasons
articulated in People v. Griffin (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 329, and sets forth two potentially
arguable issues for our consideration:
(i) whether the trial court prejudicially erred when it denied the petition
without stating that it reviewed the record and what parts it reviewed, and
by relying only on the representations of counsel; and,
(ii) whether the trial court prejudicially erred in denying the petition without
expressly stating a reason for the denial.
Upon receipt of the opening brief, we advised defendant that, because the appeal is
from the denial of a postconviction proceeding, this court is not required to conduct an
independent review of the record, and cited People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th 216.
We invited defendant to file any supplemental brief deemed necessary and advised him
3
that failure to do so might result in dismissal of the appeal as abandoned. Defendant did
not file a brief.
Neither defendant nor his counsel have presented an issue and upon our review of
the record, we do not find any error. Accordingly, we dismiss defendant’s appeal.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
MILLER
J.
CODRINGTON
J.
4