1

Filed 11/25/20 P. v. Bell CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or 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. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

WALTER LEE BELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

A158213

(Contra Costa County 

Super. Ct. No. 5-110611-1)

Walter Lee Bell appeals from an order summarily denying his petition 

for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1170.95. (See § 1237,

subd. (b); Teal v. Superior Court (2014) 60 Cal.4th 595, 597.) Bell’s appointed 

appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)

25 Cal.3d 436, 441–442 (Wende). Although Bell’s appellate counsel advised 

Bell of his right to file a supplemental brief—bringing to this court’s attention 

any issue he believed deserved review—Bell has not done so.

There is currently a split among appellate courts regarding whether an 

appeal from the summary denial of a section 1170.95 petition should be 

subject to Wende review. (See People v. Flores (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 266, 269 

[“when an appointed counsel files a Wende brief in an appeal from a summary 

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise 

specified.
2

denial of a section 1170.95 petition, a Court of Appeal is not required to 

independently review the entire record, but the court can and should do so in 

the interests of justice”]; People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1028–

1029, review granted Oct. 14, 2020, S264278 [dismissing as abandoned 

Wende appeal from the summary denial of a section 1170.95 petition; noting 

that the “court has the duty to address any issues raised by the defendant [in 

supplemental briefing] but otherwise may dismiss the appeal without 

conducting an independent review of the record”].) Assuming without 

deciding that Wende review is available in these proceedings, our 

independent review of the record has revealed no arguable issues. We 

therefore affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2

The Contra Costa County District Attorney filed an information in 

Contra Costa County Superior Court on May 9, 2011, charging Bell with the 

January 20, 2009 malice aforethought murder of Rylan Fuchs (§ 187, 

subd. (a).) The information included a special allegation that Bell 

intentionally and personally discharged a firearm, causing great bodily injury 

and death to Fuchs within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (d). 

It also alleged that the murder had occurred during the commission of an 

attempted robbery within the meaning of section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17).

At the subsequent jury trial, “[t]he prosecution’s theory of the case was 

that Bell, Aaron Marks, and others planned to rob Rylan Fuchs, a marijuana 

2 In addition to the record before us, this factual recitation is drawn 

from our prior unpublished opinion in the matter (People v. Bell (Dec. 31,

2014, A139053) [nonpub. opn.]), a part of Bell’s underlying record of 

conviction which the trial court judicially noticed in its consideration of the 

instant petition. (See People v. Woodell (1998) 17 Cal.4th 448, 456–457; 

People v. Brimmer (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 782, 800.)
3

seller, under the pretext of buying four ounces of marijuana from him; Bell 

shot Fuchs during the botched robbery attempt. The defense was that 

defendant went with Marks to buy marijuana, did not know Marks planned 

to rob Fuchs, and Marks shot Fuchs.” (People v. Bell, supra, A139053.) On

May 13, 2013, the jury found Bell guilty as charged and found the special 

allegations true. Bell was sentenced on June 21, 2013, to life without the 

possibility of parole, with a consecutive sentence of 25 years to life on the 

enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivision (d). On appeal, we 

affirmed Bell’s conviction in December 2014. (People v. Bell, supra, 

A139053.) 

In March 2019, Bell filed a form petition seeking resentencing pursuant 

to section 1170.95 and requested appointment of counsel. The court 

appointed counsel for Bell that same month. Thereafter, in May 2019, both 

the prosecutor and Bell’s attorney indicated they were submitting the matter 

on the petition without further briefing. The trial court summarily denied 

the petition by order dated July 17, 2019, finding that Bell was not eligible 

for relief under section 1170.95 because he was the actual killer. 

DISCUSSION

In 2018, Senate Bill No. 1437 was enacted “to amend the felony murder 

rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to 

murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not 

the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major 

participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to 

human life.” (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1(f).) Thus, section 1170.95 relief is not 

available for a defendant who personally commits murder. (People v.

Cornelius (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 54, 58, review granted Mar. 18, 2020, 

S260410 (Cornelius); see People v. Edwards (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 666, 674–
4

675, review granted July 8, 2020, S262481 (Edwards).) As detailed above, 

the record of conviction contains the jury’s finding beyond a reasonable doubt 

that Bell personally discharged a firearm, killing Fuchs. Here, the question 

at trial was the identity of the shooter. Thus, by making this finding the jury 

necessarily found that Bell was the actual killer. (Cf. People v. Jones (2003) 

30 Cal.4th 1084, 1120.)

We are aware that the Supreme Court has granted review on the issue 

of whether the trial court can rely on the record of conviction to conclude that 

a petitioner has failed to make a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief

under section 1170.95. (See People v. Lewis (2020) 43 Cal.App.5th 1128,

review granted Mar. 18, 2020, S260598.) However, in this appeal we are 

required to judicially notice our prior opinion in this matter, as the trial court 

took judicial notice of it during its consideration of the instant petition. (See 

Evid. Code, § 459, subd. (a).) And our opinion establishes as a matter of law 

that Bell is ineligible for relief under section 1170.95. Thus, even if the trial 

court here erred by summarily denying the petition, Bell cannot demonstrate 

prejudice, and remand for any further hearing on the petition would be futile. 

(See Edwards, supra, 48 Cal.App.5th at p. 675; Cornelius, supra, 

44 Cal.App.5th at p. 58.) The law does not require idle acts. (Civ. Code, 

§ 3532.)

DISPOSITION

The order denying Bell’s section 1170.95 petition is affirmed.
5

_________________________

Sanchez, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________

Margulies, Acting P. J.

_________________________

Banke, J.