Court Opinion

ID: 9893362
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-26 18:03:54.327317+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:30.991247
License: Public Domain

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                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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in an unpublished opinion.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

                                      4