Filed 7/13/26 P. v. Walker CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
A175288
v.
PHILLIP WALKER, (San Mateo County
Super. Ct. No. 22SF006693A)
Defendant and Appellant.
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Phillip Walker pleaded no
contest to felony grand theft and admitted a strike conviction. On this
appeal, his appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), in which she raises no issue and asks
this court for an independent review of the record. Counsel attests that she
advised Walker of his right to file a supplemental brief, but Walker has not
filed one.
Having examined the entire record in accordance with Wende, we agree
with counsel that there are no arguable issues requiring further briefing and
affirm.
BACKGROUND
According to the probation report, on May 16, 2022, while an employee
at a Best Buy in San Carlos was assisting a customer in the computer
section, Walker asked to purchase two MacBook Pro laptops. When the
1
employee momentarily looked away, Walker aggressively grabbed the
laptops. The employee attempted to maintain control of them, resulting in a
broken and bleeding fingernail. Walker fled with the laptops and was seen
running through the parking lot and entering a vehicle. The laptops were
valued at $1,150 each. Walker was identified by law enforcement on
surveillance footage. Record checks showed he was on probation for domestic
violence and on parole for robbery. He was arrested by the Sacramento
County Sheriff’s Office on June 24, 2022, on the warrant for the San Carlos
robbery.
Walker was charged by information filed on November 18, 2024, with
one count of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 212.5, subd. (c)) (count 1)
and one count of grand theft of real property (id., § 487, subd. (a)) (count 2).
The information alleged a prior serious and/or felony conviction (id., §§ 667,
subd. (d), 1170.12, subd. (b)), a 2019 second degree robbery.
On July 31, 2025, Walker entered a plea of no contest to count 2, grand
theft, and admitted the prior conviction. The plea agreement specified a
maximum possible sentence of 32 months, the low term of 16 months doubled
due to the prior strike, with the court to consider a motion to dismiss the
prior at sentencing (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497
(Romero)). The People agreed to dismiss the remaining count, as well as the
information in another case (20-NF-005711-A),1 with a Harvey waiver (People
v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754). The court accepted Walker’s plea, found him
guilty of felony grand theft and found the prior strike allegation true.
Defense counsel filed a Romero motion and the People filed opposition.
Defense counsel asked the court to dismiss the strike and grant probation,
1 This case involved the theft of a laptop from a Best Buy in Colma on
May 1, 2019.
2
urging that the offense he pleaded to, grand theft, is not a serious or violent
offense, Walker was remorseful and he had been crime-free for the last three
years; the People emphasized Walker’s continued commission of robberies
and thefts, undeterred by his prison term, parole status or arrests in several
jurisdictions for the same offenses.
At the sentencing hearing on October 28, 2025, the court reviewed the
factors identified in Romero, noting that at the time of the present offense,
Walker was on probation for domestic violence and on parole after serving a
prison sentence for a 2019 robbery, and following the present offense, he was
convicted of grand theft in 2023 and sentenced to prison.2 The court found
sentencing Walker on the strike was “within the framework of the Three
Strikes Law” and not unjust “in light of the fact that this prior robbery was
suffered back in 2019, and the defendant, based on his young age, apparently
did not learn from that experience of going to the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation.”
Upon the court’s announcement of its decision, Walker vociferously
complained that he did not know he was being sentenced that day and the
sentence was unfair, using profanity and suggesting the judge was racially
biased. The court ordered Walker removed from the courtroom, finding he
was unfit to remain. The court denied probation and sentenced Walker to a
32-month term.
Walker filed a timely notice of appeal on December 16, 2025.
2The probation report indicates this offense was committed on
May 18, 2022.
3
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Wende, we are required “to conduct a review of the entire
record whenever appointed counsel submits a brief which raises no specific
issues or describes the appeal as frivolous.” (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at
p. 441; Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.)
At the hearing on July 31, 2025, the court questioned Walker as to his
understanding of the constitutional rights he was giving up in pleading no
contest and consequences of the plea, and found he freely, knowingly and
intelligently waived his rights. Walker did not request a certificate of
probable cause; his notice of appeal specifies the appeal is based on the
sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect its
validity. He was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. The
court considered Walker’s Romero motion and declined to dismiss the prior
conviction because, in light of his criminal history, he did not fall outside the
spirit of the Three Strikes law. (People v. Shaw (2025) 18 Cal.5th 1089, 1098
[court must consider whether defendant “ ‘may be deemed outside the
scheme’s spirit’ ”].) The court’s decision not to dismiss the prior conviction is
subject to review under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. (People
v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 374.) Given Walker’s continued criminal
conduct, the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to strike the prior
conviction.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
4
STEWART, P. J.
We concur.
MILLER, J.
DESAUTELS, J.
People v. Walker (A175288)
5