1 

Filed 10/9/14 P. v. Walton 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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. 

DOW EDWIN WALTON, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 A141584 

 (Lake County 

 Super. Ct. Nos. CR932596 & 

 CR933692-A) 

INTRODUCTION 

 In this case, appellate counsel made an independent review of the proceedings 

below and concluded the record reflects no meritorious claims for appeal. He has 

advised defendant of his conclusion and advised defendant he may file a supplemental 

brief raising issues he believes merit appellate review. Defendant has not filed any such 

pleadings. Pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118-119, counsel asks this 

court to conduct an independent review of the record. We have done so and find no 

issues meriting further appellate consideration. 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

 On December 20, 2013 in Lake County, defendant Dow Edwin Walton entered a 

no contest plea to one felony count of driving under the influence (DUI) causing great 

bodily injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)) and admitted he personally inflicted great 

bodily injury (GBI) upon Andy Hopper (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)). Before 

entering his plea, the court admonished defendant of his maximum exposure of six years 

in prison. Defendant acknowledged his rights and waived them pursuant to Boykin v. 
2 

Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 and In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122. His counsel stipulated 

there was a factual basis for the plea. 

 On January 10, 2014, the Lake County District Attorney filed a separate 

information charging defendant with felony counts of attempted robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 

664, 211), grand theft from the person (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)), vandalism (Pen. 

Code, § 594, subd. (a)), and making a criminal threat (Pen. Code, § 422). Among the 

enhancements in this information was the allegation defendant was ineligible for 

probation because he had prior felony convictions. (Pen. Code, § 1203, subd. (e)(4).) 

 On March 4, 2014, upon motion by the district attorney, the information was 

amended to add one felony count of being an accessory to the attempted robbery (Pen. 

Code, § 32). Defendant then entered a no contest plea to the accessory charge as a felony 

with the understanding any sentence he received in this prosecution would be concurrent 

with the sentence in the pending DUI case. Again, before entering his plea, defendant 

acknowledged his Boykin rights and waived them. His counsel stipulated there was a 

factual basis for the plea. The remaining counts were dismissed by the court upon motion 

by the prosecution. 

 On March 28, 2014, defendant filed a motion to continue sentencing based on his 

need for an operation, the amputation of his foot and lower leg. On April 7, 2014, the 

trial court denied the request for a continuance and proceeded to hold the sentencing 

hearing. The court made this ruling after meeting with the medical director of the county 

jail where defendant was housed. The court stated, “It does appear that the procedure 

that’s going to take place can proceed either way before or after sentence.” 

 At the sentencing, defense counsel first asked for probation pursuant to Penal 

Code section 1203, subdivision (e)(4). He argued in the alternative for the middle-term 

sentence on the felony DUI. The trial court denied the two requested options by defense 

counsel. The court selected the upper term of three years for the DUI-with-injury 

conviction citing the following aggravating factors: the DUI involved great bodily injury, 
3 

defendant engaged in violent conduct indicating he posed a danger to society, his prior 

convictions were numerous, defendant served four prior prison terms, and his 

performance on parole and probation had been unsatisfactory. The single factor in 

mitigation observed by the court was defendant had made an early admission of 

responsibility in the sentencing cases. The court ordered the aggravated term to be 

enhanced by the three-year admission of GBI by defendant. 

 The court ordered the accessory conviction to run concurrent with the DUI 

sentence. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 Regarding the DUI offense, the parties stipulated the facts entailed the following: 

“On January 27 . . . the defendant was driving his automobile with two passengers – 

M[s]. Regina Walton and Mr. Andy Hopper. According to witnesses, the defendant was 

driving at a high speed and past cars over double yellow lines. The defendant lost control 

of the vehicle and went off the roadway. CHP responded and pulled the defendant and 

his passengers from the burning vehicle. 

 “The defendant admitted he had recently smoked marijuana and 

methamphetamine. A blood sample obtained confirmed that he had methamphetamine 

and marijuana in his blood. An officer observed him at the scene to display signs and 

symptoms of being under the influence of a controlled substance. One of . . . the 

defendant’s passengers, Mr. Hopper, had suffered a skull fracture, multiple broken ribs, 

lacerations and burns. . . . [¶] . . . Ms. Walton also suffered third-degree burns to her 

abdomen, chest, and thigh.” 

 On the accessory charge, the parties stipulated defendant gave misinformation to 

police investigating the location of the robbery suspect, and that defendant knew at the 

time the information was false. 
4 

DISCUSSION 

 We have reviewed the record here. Defendant was correctly advised of his rights 

before entering the no contest plea in each case. The facts support the pleas before us. 

At all times defendant was ably represented by counsel. There is no certificate of 

probable cause in either case. 

DISPOSITION

 We affirm the judgment. 

 
5 

 _________________________ 

 Dondero, J. 

We concur: 

_________________________ 

Humes, P.J. 

_________________________ 

Banke, J.