Filed 9/29/26 P. v. Green CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(San Joaquin)
THE PEOPLE, C104014
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No. STK-CR-FE-
v. 2023-0004521)
WALTER ISAIAH GREEN,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appointed counsel for defendant Walter Isaiah Green asks this court to review the
record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more
favorable to him, we will affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
In 2023, Green was at a bus station when a man using a walker approached.
Green claimed that the man had been looking at his crotch and was a “pervert,” so he
lured the man to a secluded area to beat him. According to Green, the victim reached
toward his pants like he was going to pull them down. In response, Green punched the
victim in the face, pulled him to the ground, stomped on him multiple times, and hit him
in the face with the walker 10 to 15 times. The victim’s body was later found with a bent
metal bar and a walker nearby. After being Mirandized, Green confessed to police,
providing numerous details about the incident and stating that he would do it again.
1
The People charged Green with willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder (Pen.
Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 1) and alleged multiple aggravating circumstances. (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 4.21(a)(1), (a)(3), (a)(8), (b)(1).)1 The People also charged Green
with assaulting a different victim with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 2) and
vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a); count 3) based on an unrelated incident.
After multiple psychologists opined that he was competent to stand trial, Green
was tried by a jury on the murder charge. During trial, the jury viewed surveillance video
of Green and the victim at the bus station and Green’s videotaped interrogation in which
he confessed to beating the victim. The prosecution did not present evidence or argument
concerning the assault or vandalism charges. The jury found Green guilty of first degree
murder.
After Green waived his right to a jury trial on the aggravating factors, the trial
court found true the allegations that the crime involved a vulnerable victim and that
Green had engaged in violent conduct indicating a serious danger to society. (Cal. Rules
of Court, rule 4.421(a)(3), (b)(1).) The court found the other aggravating factors not true.
Count 2 was dismissed, and count 3 was dismissed with a waiver under People v. Harvey
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.
The trial court later sentenced Green to 25 years to life in prison. The court
awarded 740 days of custody credit. It imposed a $300 restitution fine, a $300 parole
revocation fine (suspended unless parole is revoked), a $30 court conviction fee, a
$40 court operations assessment, and $12,605.91 in victim restitution.
Green timely appealed.
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436,
requesting this court’s independent review of the record. To assist with that review,
counsel’s brief advised us of two issues that counsel considered: (1) whether the trial
court should have responded to a juror’s question asking if Green had undergone a
psychiatric evaluation; and (2) whether Green received adequate notice that the
prosecutor would rely on torture as a basis for first degree murder and, if not, whether he
suffered prejudice as a result. (See People v. Kent (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 293, 298-300
[discussing practice of counsel identifying possible arguable issues in Wende brief].)
Counsel also advised Green of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the
filing of the opening brief. Green did not file a supplemental brief.
This court has reviewed the record, including the two potential issues identified by
counsel, and we find no arguable issues on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/
FEINBERG, J.
We concur:
/s/
RENNER, Acting P. J.
/s/
KRAUSE, J.
3